Peer Review Process

Overview

JSAD employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure fair, objective evaluation of all manuscripts. Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process, protecting against bias and maintaining scientific integrity.

Peer Review Model

Double-Blind Review

In double-blind peer review:

• Author anonymity: Reviewers do not know who wrote the manuscript

• Reviewer anonymity: Authors do not know who reviewed their work

• Objective evaluation: Reviewers assess work on scientific merit alone

• Bias protection: Protects against bias based on author reputation, institution, or prior relationships

How Anonymity is Maintained

Before sending manuscripts to reviewers:

• All author names and affiliations are removed

• Institutional identifiers are removed

• Author identification marks in text are replaced with placeholders

• Funding acknowledgments are removed or anonymized

• Biographical information is removed

Reviewer Selection

Reviewer Criteria

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Expertise: Recognized knowledge in the manuscript's subject area

• Publication record: Demonstrated scholarly contributions in peer-reviewed journals

• Conflict-free: No conflicts of interest with the authors

• Commitment: Able to complete timely, thorough review

Suggested Reviewers

Authors may suggest 3–5 potential reviewers in the cover letter:

• Include full name, affiliation, and email

• Briefly explain why they are qualified

• Editors consider but do not guarantee suggestions

Excluded Reviewers

Authors may request exclusion of specific individuals:

• State reason in cover letter (competing interest, recent collaboration, etc.)

• Editors honor reasonable requests when possible

Review Timeline

Expedited Review

Requests for expedited review are considered on case-by-case basis if:

• Time-sensitive research (e.g., rapid response to emerging issue)

• Specific justification provided in cover letter

• Reviewer availability permits

Review Process Steps

Step 1: Desk Review

Timeline: Within 1 weeks of submission

Editorial Office verifies:

• Manuscript is original and not simultaneously submitted elsewhere

• Format complies with Author Guidelines

• Ethical approval documentation is present (if required)

• Scope fits journal's mission

• Basic quality standards are met

Possible outcomes:

• Pass: Sent to peer review

• Desk Reject: Does not meet criteria; final decision

• Request Revisions: Reformat and resubmit for re-assessment

Step 2: Reviewer Assignment

Timeline: 2–3 days after passing desk review

Editor-in-Chief selects:

• Two qualified peer reviewers

• No conflicts of interest

• Complementary expertise

• Availability for timely review

Manuscript is prepared for double-blind review (all identifying information removed).

Step 3: Peer Evaluation

Timeline: Reviewers asked to complete within 4 weeks

Reviewers assess:

• Scientific merit and novelty – Does the work advance the field?

• Methodology - Is the study design appropriate and rigorous?

• Results presentation – Are findings clearly and accurately reported?

• Discussion – Are conclusions justified by the data?

• Ethics compliance – Does work meet ethical standards?

• Clarity and organization – Is manuscript well-written?

• Significance – Will findings be important to readers?

Reviewers provide:

• Detailed comments on strengths and weaknesses

• Recommendation (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, Reject)

• Confidential comments to editor (if needed)

Step 4: Editorial Synthesis

Timeline: 1 week after receiving reviews

Editor-in-Chief:

• Reviews both peer reports

• Considers reviewer recommendations

• Evaluates manuscript against journal standards

• Makes final acceptance/rejection decision

• Prepares decision letter

Step 5: Decision Notification

Timeline: Within 1 day of editorial decision

Authors receive:

• Decision letter from Editor-in-Chief

• Both peer review reports (reviewer identities withheld)

• Guidance on next steps

Review Outcomes

Accept

Manuscript is accepted as submitted or with minor copyediting revisions. Rare outcome.

Next step: Manuscript enters production (copyediting, formatting, DOI assignment).

Minor Revisions

Manuscript is suitable for publication after addressing small issues:

• Clarifications of methods or results

• Minor additions or deletions

• Correction of errors

• Reframing of minor conclusions

Timeline to respond: 1 week

Resubmission process:

1. Prepare response letter addressing each reviewer comment

2. Revise manuscript

3. Submit both documents

4. Editor reviews (usually no additional peer review needed)

Major Revisions

Manuscript has merit but requires substantial changes:

• Significant methodological questions

• Important missing analyses

• Over-interpretation of results

• Substantial reorganization needed

Timeline to respond: 2 weeks

Resubmission process:

1. Prepare comprehensive response letter

2. Revise manuscript extensively

3. Submit both documents

4. Sent back to reviewers for re-evaluation

5. Second round review: 2-3 weeks

6. Final decision made based on revised submission

Reject

Manuscript is not suitable for publication due to:

• Fatally flawed methodology

• Lack of originality or significance

• Outside journal scope

• Ethical concerns

• Quality below journal standards

Next step: Authors may appeal or submit to another journal.

Desk Reject

Manuscript does not meet basic criteria:

• Does not fit journal scope

• Severely below formatting standards

• Duplicate submission

• Obvious quality issues

Decision is final unless substantial revisions warrant reconsideration (rare).

Revision and Resubmission

Minor Revision Submission

Response Letter should:

• Address each reviewer comment point-by-point

• Quote the reviewer comment, then your response

• Explain how you addressed the concern

• Page numbers in original and revised manuscript

• Total length: Usually 2–3 pages

Revised Manuscript should:

• Mark all changes (use Track Changes in Word)

• Include separate clean version without tracked changes

• Respond to every comment (no "reject and move on")

Resubmit within 2 week of revision decision.

Major Revision Submission

Response Letter should:

• More comprehensive than minor revision letter

• Explain major changes in organization or analysis

• Address conceptual criticisms

• Provide substantial new evidence if required

• Typically 4–6 pages

Revised Manuscript should:

• Include all requested changes

• Track all changes prominently

• Provide clean version

• May include new analyses or supplementary data

Resubmit within 2 weeks. Submission automatically sent for second round review.

Timeline Management

Meeting Deadlines

For minor revisions: 2 week from decision date

• Submitting on time keeps manuscript on track for publication

• Extensions may delay your publication date

For major revisions: 3 week from decision date

• Includes time for re-review (2–3 weeks)

• Plan revision timeline accordingly

Requesting Extensions

If you need more time:

• Email editor@dentistryjournal.org immediately

• Specify how many additional weeks needed

• Explain reason for delay

• Editor can grant extensions on request

Do not miss deadline without communicating.

Appeals Process

Appealing a Rejection

If you believe your manuscript was unfairly rejected:

1. Prepare appeal letter:

   • Explain perceived unfairness specifically

   • Address each reviewer criticism point-by-point

   • Provide new evidence if applicable

   • Request reconsideration by different reviewers (if justified)

2. Submit to Editor-in-Chief:

   • Email: editor@dentistryjournal.org

   • Include appeal letter and original manuscript

   • Explain why you believe reviewers missed important points

3. Editor Review:

   • Editor-in-Chief will consider your appeal

   • Decision within 4 weeks

   • Final decision after this process

Grounds for Successful Appeal

Successful appeals typically involve:

• Reviewer misunderstood your methodology

• Reviewer overlooked key evidence

• Reviewer recommendation conflicts with journal standards

• New significant data addresses original concern

Reviewer Expectations

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are asked to:

• Complete review within 4 weeks

• Provide constructive, objective feedback

• Assess scientific merit fairly and thoroughly

• Maintain manuscript confidentiality

• Disclose conflicts of interest

• Respect author anonymity

• Support journal's mission of quality publishing

Reviewer Accountability

• Reviewers commit to ethical standards

• Unethical reviewer behavior is investigated

• Poor-quality reviews are addressed

• Reviewers can be removed for misconduct

• Exceptional reviewers are recognized

Post-Decision Process

For Accepted Manuscripts

After acceptance decision:

1. Manuscript enters production phase

2. Copy editing and formatting begin

3. Author receives page proofs (usually within 1–2 weeks)

4. Author must review and return proofs within 48 hours

5. Article assigned DOI and publication date

6. Notification sent when article appears online

For Rejected Manuscripts

After rejection:

• You may appeal (see Appeals Process above)

• You may submit to another journal

• Feedback from reviewers can inform revisions for other journals

Contact During Review

Checking Status

• Log into your account to view real-time status

• Status updates emailed at each milestone

• Typical updates: Submitted → Desk Review → Under Review → Decision

Questions About Your Submission

Email: editor@dentistryjournal.org
Include: Manuscript ID and specific question
Response time: 2–3 business days

Expedited Response Needed

If you have time-sensitive questions:

• Mark subject line as "Urgent"

• Explain time sensitivity

• Response time: 24 hours (when possible)