Editorial Policies
The Journal of Clinical Advances in Dentistry (JCAD) upholds a strong editorial framework that ensures transparency, fairness, and ethical integrity in the publication process. These policies are guided by international standards established by COPE, the ICMJE, and the WAME.
Editorial Independence
The editorial team operates independently from the journal’s publisher and sponsors. Decisions on manuscript acceptance or rejection are based solely on academic merit, originality, and relevance, free from commercial influence or institutional pressure.
Peer Review Policy
All manuscripts undergo double-blind peer review, ensuring impartiality between authors and reviewers. The process typically involves at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Reviewers evaluate submissions for:
- Originality and scientific contribution
- Methodological rigor and ethical compliance
- Clarity, organization, and presentation
- Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal
Conflict of Interest
Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest. This ensures transparency and helps maintain trust in the editorial process. Undisclosed conflicts may result in rejection or retraction of published work.
Authorship Criteria
Authorship must be based on substantial intellectual contribution to the study. Following ICMJE guidelines, all authors should have:
- Contributed significantly to conception, design, data collection, or analysis
- Drafted or critically revised the manuscript
- Approved the final version for publication
- Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work
Plagiarism and Misconduct
JCAD maintains a zero-tolerance policy for plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or duplicate publication. All manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection tools. Allegations of misconduct are investigated in line with COPE procedures.
Corrections and Retractions
When errors are identified post-publication, the journal issues corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions as appropriate. This ensures the integrity of the scientific record.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal editorial decisions if they believe their manuscript was unfairly rejected. Complaints regarding the editorial process should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief, who will ensure they are handled transparently and fairly.
Data Sharing and Transparency
Authors are encouraged to share underlying datasets, supplementary materials, and protocols whenever possible. This promotes reproducibility and greater trust in published findings.
Editorial Board Responsibilities
The editorial board is responsible for maintaining high academic standards, supporting the peer review process, promoting journal visibility, and advising on scope expansion.
Ethics in Human and Animal Research
All research involving human participants must follow the Declaration of Helsinki. Studies involving animals must comply with international animal welfare standards and receive institutional ethical approval.
Advertising and Sponsorship
Advertising or sponsorship does not influence editorial decisions. Sponsored supplements or advertisements are clearly identified to maintain transparency.
FAQs
How are reviewers selected?
Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and availability.
Can authors suggest reviewers?
Yes, authors may suggest potential reviewers, but final selection rests with the editors.
What happens if plagiarism is detected?
Manuscripts with confirmed plagiarism are rejected, and serious cases may be reported to institutions.