We ask authors and peer-reviewers to submit their articles and reports via our secure online system (http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/iej/login).

Best Practices in Research Reporting

All research submitted to IEJ must be reported according to internationally accepted standards for the study type with ethics oversight obtained where appropriate.

Editorial decisions

Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, and we do not exactly always follow the recommendations. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration.

Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editor with the information on which a decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editor than a direct recommendation one way or the other.

Scientific and Initial Screening

The staff of IEJ would check the structure and content of manuscripts to ensure compliance with standard structures (based on the type of study), the aim and scope of the IEJ, standard guidelines and adherence to ethical issues. In this step, articles would be screened in the shortest possible time. If all technical rules are met by the manuscript, the Editorial Process begins. As a result, such triage would help the editor in making fair final decisions on articles and eventually improve the ultimate quality of published articles.

Cover letter

The cover letter is important. To help the Editor during preliminary evaluation, please specify why author(s) think the paper suitable for publication in the IEJ.

Selecting reviewers

Reviewers’ selection is critical to the peer review process. The selection is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and previous experience of a referee’s characteristics. For instance, IEJ avoid using referees who are chronically slow, careless, too harsh or too lenient.

Editorial office of IEJ normally contact potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Reviewers should bear in mind that these messages contain confidential information, which should be treated as such.

Double blind peer review process

Double-blind peer review is a model of peer review which reduces biases by allowing reviewer(s) to judge the manuscript only based on scientific content, un-biased by information of who the author(s) is/are.

Submitted manuscripts are primarily allocated with a submission code and all the future contacts should be based on the code. Manuscripts submitted to IEJ which do not adhere to the “Instructions for Authors” will be returned for appropriate revision to be in line with the instructions for authors. They may then be resubmitted.

Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to IEJ readership are sent for formal review, typically to three reviewers. Through a double-blind review, the manuscripts will be reviewed by the selected peer reviewers and our statisticians who check the articles for any methodological flaws, format, and their compliance with the instructions of IEJ. Neither the peer reviewers nor the authors are revealed to each other. The existence of a submitted manuscript is not revealed to anyone other than the reviewers and editorial staff. Reviewers are required to keep manuscripts and their information confidential. They must not use knowledge of the manuscript before its publication for their personal interests. Reviewers should declare their conflicts of interest and decline review if a conflict exists. In probable case, knowing the author(s) must not affect their comments and decision. Their comments should be constructive, honest, and polite. The reviewers’ comments will be passed to the authors and their responses to the comments along with the reviewers’ comments will then be evaluated by a final reviewer who can be a member of the Editorial Board and the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor, on the basis of the comments, and the standards of IEJ, will decide which articles should be rejected, provisionally accepted or accepted.

It should be noted that articles submitted by the staff and editors of the IEJ will also be subjected to peer review and the authors will be completely blind to the evaluation process of their article until a final decision has been made.

Editorial Independence and responsibilities

Although the IEJ is sponsored financially by Iranian Center for Endodontic Research (ICER), it benefits from editorial freedom. Obviously, publishing fees or waiver status do not influence editor decision making. The editor evaluate and accept articles based only on significance, originality, validity, and adherence to the aims and scope of the IEJ.

Our editorial policy is consistent with the principles of editorial independence presented by the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME: http://www.wame.org/).

The Editor has complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article. Editor should has no conflict of interest with respect to articles he/she reject/accept. When errors are found in a manuscript, the editor promotes publication of corrections or retractions. The anonymity of reviewers is preserved.

Editing referees’ reports

As a matter of policy, the editor(s) of IEJ evaluate reviewers’ reports and any comments that were intended for the authors are transmitted. However, the editor(s) may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information about other matters. We ask reviewers to avoid statements that may cause needless offence; conversely, we strongly encourage reviewers to state plainly their opinion of a paper.


IEJ is committed to a reasonably rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. Normally it takes approximately 4 months.