Peer Review at JCDMS
The Journal of Clinical Dentistry and Medical Sciences (JCDMS) is committed to maintaining high standards of scientific quality through a rigorous, fair, confidential, independent, and transparent peer-review process.
Every submitted manuscript undergoes editorial assessment and, where suitable, independent expert review to evaluate its originality, scientific validity, methodological quality, ethical compliance, clinical relevance, clarity, and contribution to the existing literature.
Peer review assists authors in strengthening their manuscripts and supports editors in making informed, evidence-based publication decisions.
Our Peer-Review Principles
|
⚖️
Fairness
|
🔍
Scientific Objectivity
|
|
🔒
Confidentiality
|
🤝
Constructive Feedback
|
|
⏱️
Timeliness
|
🛡️
Research Integrity
|
Double-Blind Peer Review
JCDMS follows a double-blind peer-review process. Under this system, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.
Authors must therefore upload a separate Title Page containing author details and prepare the Main Manuscript without names, affiliations, contact details, institutional logos, identifying acknowledgements, or other information that may reveal author identity.
Peer-Review Workflow
Each submission progresses through a structured editorial and peer-review workflow. The exact process may vary according to the article type, subject area, reviewer availability, and complexity of the manuscript.
- Submission and administrative verification
- Technical and formatting screening
- Initial editorial assessment
- Similarity, ethical, and policy checks
- Selection and invitation of independent reviewers
- External peer review
- Editorial evaluation of reviewer reports
- Communication of the editorial decision
- Revision and resubmission, where required
- Final editorial decision
- Production and publication after acceptance
Initial Editorial Screening
Every manuscript undergoes an initial editorial and technical assessment before external peer review. This screening determines whether the submission is suitable for further consideration.
The initial assessment may consider:
- Relevance to the Aim and Scope of JCDMS
- Completeness of the submission files
- Compliance with Author Guidelines
- Scientific relevance and originality
- Ethics approval and informed-consent requirements
- Similarity and originality screening
- Clarity of language and presentation
- Methodological and reporting quality
- Appropriate use of reporting guidelines
- Potential publication-ethics concerns
Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, lack minimum scientific quality, contain major ethical concerns, or fail to meet essential submission requirements may be returned for correction or declined without external peer review.
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief, Handling Editor, or designated editorial team member according to their expertise, experience, independence, and suitability for evaluating the manuscript.
Reviewer selection may consider:
- Subject knowledge and methodological expertise
- Relevant research and publication experience
- Ability to provide an independent assessment
- Absence of financial, personal, or institutional conflicts
- Previous reviewer performance and timeliness
- Geographical and institutional diversity where possible
- Availability within the required review period
JCDMS normally seeks reports from at least two independent reviewers. Additional reviewers, statistical reviewers, ethical advisers, or specialist reviewers may be invited where necessary.
Suggested and Excluded Reviewers
Authors may be invited to suggest qualified reviewers or identify individuals who should not review the manuscript. Reviewer suggestions are advisory only, and the journal is not obligated to invite the proposed individuals.
Suggested reviewers should:
- Have appropriate expertise in the subject area
- Be independent of the authors and the submitted work
- Not belong to the same institution as the authors
- Not have a recent close collaboration with the authors
- Have a verifiable institutional email or professional profile
Review Criteria
Reviewers are requested to assess the manuscript objectively and provide comments that help editors evaluate its suitability for publication.
- Originality and contribution to scientific knowledge
- Importance and relevance of the research question
- Appropriateness of the study design
- Clarity and reproducibility of the methodology
- Adequacy of sample-size determination and sampling methods
- Suitability of statistical analysis
- Ethical approval, informed consent, and trial registration
- Accuracy and clarity of the results
- Appropriateness of tables, figures, and supplementary files
- Interpretation of findings and quality of the discussion
- Strengths, limitations, and clinical implications
- Validity of conclusions
- Accuracy, relevance, and currency of references
- Compliance with the relevant reporting guideline
- Overall clarity, organization, and readability
Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to maintain professional, ethical, and confidential conduct throughout the review process.
- Evaluate manuscripts objectively and impartially.
- Maintain strict confidentiality.
- Declare actual or potential conflicts of interest.
- Accept assignments only within their area of competence.
- Provide constructive, respectful, and evidence-based comments.
- Avoid personal criticism of authors.
- Identify possible plagiarism or duplicate publication.
- Report suspected ethical or research-integrity concerns.
- Identify important relevant literature not cited.
- Complete the review within the requested timeframe.
- Avoid using unpublished information for personal, academic, professional, or commercial advantage.
Responsibilities of Editors
Editors are responsible for maintaining the fairness, integrity, independence, and confidentiality of the peer-review process.
- Assess manuscripts without inappropriate discrimination.
- Select suitably qualified and independent reviewers.
- Preserve author and reviewer confidentiality.
- Declare and manage editorial conflicts of interest.
- Evaluate reviewer recommendations critically and independently.
- Ensure that reviewer comments remain professional and relevant.
- Investigate ethical concerns fairly and confidentially.
- Arrange independent handling when an editor or Editorial Board member is an author or has a conflict.
- Make timely and evidence-based editorial decisions.
Responsibilities of Authors During Peer Review
Authors should cooperate professionally throughout editorial assessment, peer review, and revision.
- Respond respectfully to editor and reviewer comments.
- Provide accurate, complete, and evidence-based responses.
- Submit revisions within the specified timeframe.
- Clearly identify all changes made to the manuscript.
- Provide scientific justification when a recommendation is not followed.
- Disclose relevant errors or omissions discovered during review.
- Avoid attempting to identify or contact anonymous reviewers.
- Maintain confidentiality of editorial correspondence.
Editorial Decisions
Reviewer recommendations assist the editor but do not automatically determine the final decision. The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Handling Editor evaluates the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, ethical considerations, and journal priorities before issuing a decision.
| Decision | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Accept | The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to completion of production requirements. |
| Minor Revision |
Limited corrections or clarifications are required before further consideration. |
| Major Revision |
Substantial scientific, methodological, analytical, or presentation changes are required. |
| Reject and Invite Resubmission |
The current manuscript is unsuitable, but a substantially revised new submission may be considered. |
| Reject |
The manuscript will not be considered further in its current form. |
A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated editor.
Revision and Resubmission
Authors receiving a revision decision should address every editor and reviewer comment individually and transparently.
A revised submission should normally include:
- A detailed point-by-point response letter
- A clean revised manuscript
- A marked version showing changes, where requested
- Updated tables, figures, forms, and supplementary files
- Revised declarations or ethical documents where necessary
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated directly by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the changes.
Additional Review Rounds
More than one round of peer review may be required when substantial revisions are necessary, reviewer concerns remain unresolved, new analyses have been added, or additional expert assessment is needed.
The journal may invite new reviewers if the original reviewers are unavailable, additional expertise is required, or a conflict of interest becomes apparent.
Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, academic, professional, institutional, personal, or intellectual interest that could influence—or reasonably appear to influence—their judgement.
A reviewer or editor should normally decline involvement when:
- They work at the same institution as an author.
- They have a recent close collaboration with an author.
- They have a personal or professional dispute with an author.
- They may gain financially from the outcome.
- They have previously reviewed or contributed to the manuscript.
- Their objectivity could reasonably be questioned.
Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, editorial staff, and advisers must not disclose manuscript contents, unpublished findings, author information, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, or decision discussions except where necessary for legitimate editorial or ethical purposes.
Unpublished ideas, methods, images, results, or data obtained through peer review must not be used for personal research, publication, commercial activity, professional advantage, or the disadvantage of another individual.
Artificial Intelligence During Peer Review
Reviewers and editors must protect manuscript confidentiality when using digital or artificial-intelligence tools.
Unpublished manuscripts, figures, data, reviewer reports, author details, or confidential editorial correspondence must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative-AI platforms or other unauthorized external systems.
AI tools cannot replace reviewer expertise, critical analysis, ethical responsibility, or human editorial judgement. Reviewers and editors remain fully accountable for their assessments and decisions.
Ethical Concerns Identified During Review
Reviewers and editors should promptly report concerns that may affect the integrity, legality, or ethical acceptability of a manuscript.
- Plagiarism or substantial text overlap
- Duplicate or redundant publication
- Data fabrication or falsification
- Inappropriate image manipulation
- Missing or questionable ethical approval
- Absence of informed consent
- Authorship concerns or contributor omissions
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest
- Citation manipulation
- Manipulation of the peer-review process
Such concerns will be assessed in accordance with the JCDMS Publication Ethics Policy and may require clarification, supporting documentation, independent advice, institutional communication, rejection, correction, or other editorial action.
Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members
Editors and Editorial Board members may submit manuscripts to JCDMS, but they will receive no preferential treatment.
An editor who is an author, collaborator, institutional colleague, or otherwise conflicted will have no role in reviewer selection, correspondence, evaluation, or decision-making for that manuscript. Independent editorial handling will be assigned.
Peer-Review Timeline
Review times depend on manuscript complexity, subject specialization, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and the need for additional expert assessment.
JCDMS aims to complete initial screening, external review, editorial evaluation, and communication of decisions as efficiently as possible. However, the journal does not guarantee a fixed review or acceptance timeline.
Appeals Against Editorial Decisions
Authors may appeal a decision when they believe that a substantial scientific misunderstanding, factual error, conflict of interest, or procedural problem affected the outcome.
An appeal should include:
- The manuscript number and title
- The decision being appealed
- A clear scientific or procedural explanation
- A response to the reasons provided by the editor
- Relevant supporting evidence
Appeals based only on disagreement with reviewer recommendations, without substantial scientific or procedural justification, may not be considered. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance.
Editorial Independence
Peer-review and editorial decisions are made independently of Article Processing Charges, commercial interests, advertisers, sponsors, institutional influence, author status, geographic location, or personal relationships. Payment of any publication fee does not influence reviewer recommendations or editorial decisions.
Our Commitment
JCDMS is committed to providing a rigorous, fair, confidential, independent, constructive, and timely peer-review process. The journal will continue to review and improve its editorial procedures to support authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and the integrity of the scientific record.
Questions About Peer Review?
Contact the Editorial Office for assistance regarding manuscript review, revision, editorial decisions, or appeals.