The Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer
The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading/evaluating a manuscript, and providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to the editor(s) as well as authors about the manuscript. It is appropriate for the peer reviewer to discuss the strengths/weaknesses of the paper, ways to improve the quality of the work, and evaluate the novelty/relevance of the manuscript. Due to the fact that all submissions are confidential, peer reviewers are asked not to discuss any aspect of the submissions with a third party. In addition, peer reviewers are not permitted to contact the author directly.
Please consider the following:
- Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise? If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not appropriately match your area of expertise, please inform the editor of JCPR and, if possible, recommend an alternate reviewer.
- Are there any potential conflicts of interests? It is mandatory to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing; however, it is noteworthy that such disclosure will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript.
When reviewing the article, please keep the following in mind:
- Quality and originality:
The article should be sufficiently novel and interesting for readers and informative, potentially improving the knowledge of endodontic, and strictly adhere to the journal’s guidelines/standards.
Note: If the research has been covered before, pass on references of those works to the editor.
- Organization and Clarity:
Title: Is the title appropriate and pertinent?
Abstract: Does the abstract include the entire inherent components of an article namely background and aims, materials and methods, results and conclusion?
Are the key words correct, appropriate and related to the manuscript?
Introduction: Does the introduction involve the background, importance, and research necessity and study names?
Methods and Materials: Does the section include the following items: Study method, Study population, Sampling method, Statistical tests, Data collection method and Ethical consideration?
Results: Have the results been expressed clearly and with logical sequence? Are the Figures, Tables and Graphs appropriate and contain sufficient information for clarity?
Discussion: Are the data interpretation and their limits clear and does the Discussion section involves the comparison of data with related surveys and addressing the difference source? Is the discussion contents supported by results? Is the ratio of different parts of the manuscript appropriate?
References: Are the references related and up-to-date? Have they been prepared regarding the instructions of the journal?
In case of Ethical Issues or a need for modifications which not mentioned in the above questions, please write your suggestions to Editor.
Note: Ethical Issues
- Plagiarism: If you suspect that the manuscript is a substantial copy of another work, please cite the previous work in as much detail as possible
- Fraud: It is very challenging to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in the manuscript to be untrue, please inform
- Other ethical concerns: Violation of the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of animal or human subjects should be reported
Article Types Considered
Original articles: Should contain a structured abstract, related keywords, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, acknowledgement (if applicable), references, maximum 4 tables and 4 figures. The length should not exceed 3500 words excluding the references, abstract, figures and tables. These articles are limited to 40 references.
Consort randomized clinical trials (RCT): The format is similar to original articles. Must strictly adhere to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) minimum guidelines for publication of randomized clinical trials (http://www.consort-statement.org). RCTs should be registered in appropriate trial registries approved by the WHO and their registration number should be mentioned in the title page.
Brief reports: Should contain a non-structured abstract, 3-5 keywords, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, acknowledgement (if applicable), references, maximum 2 tables and figures. However, the word count should not exceed 2000 words. 10-15 references should be stated.
Case series/reports: Should contain a non-structured abstract, 3-5 keywords, introduction, case presentation, discussion, conclusion, acknowledgement (if applicable), references, maximum 1 table and maximum 3 figures. Case reports should optimally be accompanied by relevant figures to document findings.
Review articles/Narrative reviews: There are no limits in the number of references for review articles. Abstract should be non-structured. The word count should not exceed 4500 words. Narrative reviews should contain the critical assessment of the current knowledge of the field.
Systematic reviews/meta-analysis of RCTs or Observational studies will be accepted by the journal. The protocol of the study should adhere to PRISMA or MOOSE guidelines of systematic reviews of RCTs or Observational studies, respectively. Abstract should be structured. There are no limits in the number of references for these articles.
Letters to the Editor should be less than 750 words. Letters discussing articles published in the JCPR should be submitted at most within 4 months after the publication of the main article. Letter will undergo peer review and will be edited for clarity. Up to 5 references may be stated.