Peer Review Policy

Journal of Dentistry and Oral Healthcare

The Journal of Dentistry and Oral Healthcare is committed to ensuring the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. Peer review is a fundamental component of the journal’s quality assurance system and is designed to evaluate the originality, scientific validity, and clinical relevance of submitted manuscripts.

1. Type of Peer Review

The journal follows a double-blind peer review process, in which:

  • The identities of the authors are not disclosed to reviewers
  • The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors

This system ensures impartial evaluation and minimizes bias during the review process.

2. Review Process Overview

All submitted manuscripts undergo the following stages:

Step 1: Initial Editorial Screening

  • The editorial office evaluates the manuscript for scope, formatting, originality, and adherence to journal guidelines
  • Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements may be rejected without external review

Step 2: Plagiarism Check

  • All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software
  • Manuscripts with unacceptable similarity are rejected or returned for correction

Step 3: External Peer Review

  • Suitable manuscripts are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers
  • Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise in dentistry and oral healthcare
  • Reviewers evaluate scientific quality, methodology, originality, and clinical relevance

Step 4: Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer feedback, the editor makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and novelty of research
  • Scientific accuracy and methodological soundness
  • Clinical relevance to dentistry and oral healthcare
  • Clarity of presentation and organization
  • Ethical compliance in research design and reporting
  • Quality and relevance of references

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and unbiased feedback
  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript
  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest
  • Complete reviews within the specified timeframe
  • Avoid personal criticism of authors

5. Author Responsibilities

Authors must:

  • Respond to reviewer comments professionally and thoroughly
  • Revise manuscripts within the given deadline
  • Provide a point-by-point response to reviewer suggestions
  • Ensure that revised submissions address all concerns raised

6. Confidentiality Policy

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not:

  • Share or discuss manuscript content with unauthorized individuals
  • Use unpublished data for personal research purposes
  • Disclose any information related to the review process

7. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect impartial judgment. In such cases, they will be excluded from the review process.

8. Review Timeline

The journal aims to provide a timely review process:

  • Initial decision: typically within a few weeks of submission
  • Revision cycles depend on author response time
  • Final publication is scheduled after acceptance and final editing

9. Final Decision Authority

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of a manuscript rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewer recommendations and editorial evaluation.