Peer review is an essential component of the editorial process and plays a fundamental role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and reliability of the scientific literature. The Journal of Dental School expects all reviewers to conduct their evaluations in accordance with the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, scientific rigor, respect, and research integrity, consistent with the ethical guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Reviewers should accept an invitation only when the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and they have sufficient time to provide a thorough and timely assessment. Reviewers should decline an invitation if they lack the appropriate expertise, have a conflict of interest, or are unable to complete the review within the requested timeframe.
Reviewers should promptly inform the editorial office if they recognize the authors, institution, study, or other circumstances that could affect their impartiality. Suggestions of alternative reviewers should be made only when appropriate and should not be used to influence the composition of the review panel.
Manuscripts submitted to the journal are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, share, copy, distribute, or discuss the manuscript or any information obtained during the review process with anyone outside the editorial process without explicit permission from the Editor.
Reviewers must not use unpublished data, methods, results, ideas, or other information contained in a manuscript for their own research or professional advantage.
If consultation with another individual is considered necessary, the reviewer should obtain permission from the Editor before sharing any part of the manuscript and should ensure that the individual understands and complies with the journal’s confidentiality requirements.
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their judgment. Conflicts may arise from personal, professional, academic, institutional, financial, or competitive relationships.
Examples include recent collaboration with an author, close personal or professional relationships, direct competition in the same research area, institutional relationships, financial interests, or other circumstances that may compromise impartiality.
A conflict of interest does not necessarily imply misconduct; however, reviewers should disclose relevant circumstances so that the Editor can determine whether the review should proceed. When a conflict cannot be adequately managed, the reviewer should decline the invitation.
Reviewers must not contact authors directly about the manuscript or attempt to influence the editorial decision outside the formal review process.
Reviews should be objective, balanced, evidence-based, and constructive. The reviewer’s role is to assist the Editor in evaluating the manuscript and to provide authors with useful guidance for improving the work.
Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript independently and should not allow personal characteristics, nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, seniority, or other irrelevant considerations to influence their assessment.
Comments should be professional and respectful. Personal, offensive, discriminatory, sarcastic, or derogatory remarks are inappropriate and should not be included in a review.
Reviewers should distinguish clearly between major concerns that affect the validity, reliability, originality, or interpretation of the work and minor issues that can be addressed through revision.
Depending on the nature of the manuscript, reviewers should consider the following aspects:
Originality and significance: Whether the study provides a meaningful contribution to the existing literature.
Relevance and scope: Whether the manuscript is appropriate for the aims and scope of the journal.
Research question: Whether the objectives or hypotheses are clearly stated and scientifically justified.
Study design: Whether the design is appropriate for addressing the research question.
Methods: Whether the methodology is sufficiently described, appropriate, reproducible, and scientifically sound.
Sample and data: Whether the sample selection, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data collection, and handling of missing data are adequately reported.
Statistical analysis: Whether the statistical methods are appropriate, adequately described, and correctly interpreted.
Results: Whether the results are clearly and accurately presented and adequately support the conclusions.
Interpretation: Whether the discussion appropriately considers the findings in the context of previous evidence and acknowledges important limitations.
Conclusions: Whether the conclusions are supported by the results and are not overstated.
References: Whether the literature cited is relevant, appropriate, sufficiently current, and accurately represented.
Presentation: Whether the manuscript is clear, coherent, and appropriately structured.
For clinical and experimental studies, reviewers should also consider whether relevant ethical, methodological, reporting, and registration requirements have been addressed.
Reviewers should remain alert to potential concerns relating to research and publication ethics. Where appropriate, reviewers should notify the Editor confidentially if they identify concerns such as:
plagiarism or substantial textual overlap;
duplicate or redundant publication;
suspected fabrication or falsification of data;
inappropriate image manipulation;
inappropriate authorship or contribution practices;
undisclosed conflicts of interest;
unethical research involving human participants or animals;
lack of appropriate ethical approval or informed consent;
inappropriate data or statistical practices;
citation manipulation or excessive self-citation;
suspected peer-review manipulation; or
other forms of research or publication misconduct.
Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact authors about suspected misconduct. Such concerns should be reported confidentially to the Editor, who will determine the appropriate course of action in accordance with the journal’s policies and relevant COPE guidance.
Where applicable, reviewers should assess whether the manuscript provides adequate information regarding ethical approval, informed consent, animal welfare, clinical trial registration, data availability, and other relevant ethical or regulatory requirements.
Reviewers should also consider whether the manuscript follows appropriate reporting standards for its study design. When necessary, reviewers may recommend the use of relevant reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE, STARD, or other applicable standards.
Reviewers should assess whether figures, tables, images, and supplementary materials accurately represent the reported findings and are necessary, appropriately presented, and adequately described.
Any apparent inappropriate image manipulation, duplication, fabrication, or inconsistency between figures and the reported data should be reported confidentially to the Editor.
Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts throughout the review process. Manuscript content, including text, figures, tables, supplementary files, or unpublished data, must not be uploaded to publicly accessible or third-party generative artificial intelligence systems or other external tools when doing so could compromise confidentiality.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content and recommendations of their review. AI-generated output must not replace the reviewer’s own critical assessment. If the journal permits the use of AI-assisted tools in peer review, reviewers must follow the specific instructions provided by the journal and must not enter confidential manuscript information into systems that are not authorized for this purpose.
The review should provide clear and actionable feedback. Reviewers are encouraged to structure their comments logically and, where appropriate, identify:
major issues that must be addressed for the manuscript to be considered further;
minor issues that would improve clarity, accuracy, or presentation; and
specific recommendations regarding methodology, analysis, interpretation, or reporting.
The recommendation submitted to the Editor should accurately reflect the reviewer’s assessment and should be consistent with the comments provided. Reviewers should not recommend rejection solely because a manuscript presents results that differ from their own findings or preferred interpretation.
Editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the Editor. Reviewers should therefore provide an evidence-based recommendation rather than attempting to determine or communicate the final editorial decision to the authors.
Reviewers should complete their assessments within the timeframe specified in the invitation. If additional time is required, reviewers should contact the editorial office as soon as possible. If they are unable to complete the review, they should decline the invitation promptly so that the editorial process is not unnecessarily delayed.
The reviewer’s responsibilities continue after submission of the review. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript, the review process, and any editorial communications and must not use information obtained during peer review for personal, academic, commercial, or competitive purposes.
Reviewers should also refrain from attempting to identify, contact, or influence other reviewers involved in the evaluation of the manuscript.
The journal values the contribution of peer reviewers and may provide appropriate recognition for their scholarly service, subject to the journal’s policies and applicable confidentiality requirements.
By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to uphold the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, independence, scientific integrity, and professional conduct described in these instructions.
The Journal of Dental School reserves the right to discontinue a reviewer’s participation in the peer-review process when there are substantiated concerns regarding confidentiality, conflicts of interest, inappropriate conduct, breach of ethical standards, or other actions that may compromise the integrity of peer review.