Peer Review Process
Caspian Journal of Dental Research conducts an initial editorial screening of the submitted manuscript. Submissions that do not adhere to the “Instruction for Authors” will be returned to authors for corrections.
All journals are peer reviewed before final publication. Reviewers are selected based on many factors including expertise, reputation. Each manuscript is reviewed by four to five reviewers who are experts in the field and are selected by the editor-in-chief. It is very important that our reviewers remain anonymous to authors and to other reviewers. Once all peer reviews are received by the editorial board, a final decision about the journal publication is drafted.The comments of the reviewers are evaluated by the Associate Editor. The Associate editor may choose to send the journal back to the author(s) for necessary revision. Then, the journal is sent to Editor-in-Chief for final decision. The revised manuscripts are also reviewed, usually by the Associate Editor.The initial evaluation of the submission takes usually 2 weeks. The peer-review process may take 1 to 2 months to complete.
Guidelines for reviewers:
Conflicts of interest:
All reviewers are asked whether any conflicts of interest exists with the work they review.peer reviewers with potential conflict of interest should recuse themselves from the process.
This would includes:
-you are a direct competitor of the author
-you financially profit from the work
-antipathy with the author(s)
-collaboration with the author(s)
Timing:
Once you “accept” the invitation, you have to complete and submit the review within 14 days. If more time is needed, please notify us to extent the timeline or to request for alternate reviewer.
Confidentiality:
Reviewers are required to strictly keep all the material with strict confidence. Before the work being published, reviewers must not use their knowledge of the work to gain interest.
Respond to the author(s):
We send the reviews along with the decision being made(by the editorial) to the author(s). We encourage reviewers to be honest but not offensive or rude. We may edit the reviews or the inappropriate language being used.
Respond to the reviewers:
We send all the reviews to the reviewers along with the decision being made for that work.
What to review:
In our reviewing form, we have separate parts for “comments to editor” and “comments to the Author”. in addition to being “ethically conducted” and “scientifically valid”, the work under consideration must fulfil further requirements. Your review should provide professionals and editors with an honest, well established assessment on the quality of the work.
First, please discuss the originality, accuracy, and completeness of the work. Validity, Novelty and Transparency should be discussed further.
Validity:
Please comment on the methodology being used, and whether the results fully support the author`s conclusion. Note any potential sources of bias and confusion if present. If relevant, please share your own methodological expertise.
Novelty:
Please provide citations for any work which may limit the novelty of this paper.
Transparency:
please comment whether the work has been presented in a transparent, reproducible way; or whether the research adhere the initial plan.
We require separate comments for various parts of the journal including: Title, Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Each part has several related questions to comment on. Please find further information on what to review in the “review form” emailed to you.
Notification of Reviewer invitation will arrive by e-mail. When invited to review a manuscript, the Reviewer will need to indicate whether the invitation will be accepted or declined. You can find the “Accept” and “Decline” icons in the e-mail you received or you can log into your account and manage it from the “Reviewers section”. After enter to “Reviewers section”, as shown in the image below, the reviewer can click on "word processing software logo" under Download icon to download the file of the manuscript. Moreover, the reviewer can click on the Review icon under the Start to begin the review process, or Cancel icon to cancel the process of reviewing the manuscript.
After the Reviewer starts the review process, he/she should fill the evaluation form and can upload his/her comments file as well. At the end, the reviewer must click on the “Save and send the form” Botton to Complete the assessment procedure.
.jpg)
.jpg)
View: 14063 Time(s) | Print: 1900 Time(s) | Email: 0 Time(s) |
0 Comment(s)
