Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Clinical Advances in Dentistry (JCAD) follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process to ensure the integrity, quality, and originality of published content. Peer review is central to our mission of maintaining scientific credibility and supporting the advancement of dental knowledge.
Objectives of Peer Review
- Ensure scientific validity, originality, and significance
- Provide constructive feedback to authors for improvement
- Detect potential ethical issues, plagiarism, or data manipulation
- Maintain fairness and impartiality in editorial decisions
Peer Review Workflow
The following steps describe the peer review process at JCAD:
| Stage | Description |
|---|---|
| Initial Screening | The Editor-in-Chief reviews the submission for scope, formatting, and plagiarism. |
| Reviewer Assignment | Manuscripts are sent to at least two independent experts with subject expertise. |
| Double-Blind Review | Reviewers evaluate originality, methodology, results, and ethical compliance. |
| Editorial Decision | Decisions may be: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. |
| Revision Cycle | Authors resubmit revised manuscripts with point-by-point responses. |
| Final Decision | The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on reviewer feedback. |
Reviewer Responsibilities
- Provide unbiased and timely evaluations
- Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts under review
- Disclose conflicts of interest before accepting review invitations
- Report suspected ethical concerns or plagiarism
Author Responsibilities
- Respond to reviewer comments thoroughly and respectfully
- Revise manuscripts according to feedback and provide clear responses
- Ensure transparency in methodology, data, and conflicts of interest
Editorial Responsibilities
- Select qualified reviewers with relevant subject expertise
- Ensure fairness, impartiality, and adherence to COPE standards
- Maintain confidentiality of all submissions
Timelines
JCAD strives to provide initial decisions within 4–6 weeks. Timeframes may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.
Ethical Considerations
The peer review process follows COPE guidelines. Suspected misconduct is investigated transparently, with possible outcomes including rejection, correction, or retraction.
Appeals Process
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a detailed explanation and supporting evidence. Appeals are reviewed by the editorial board, and final decisions are binding.
FAQs
Can authors suggest reviewers?
Yes, authors may suggest qualified reviewers, but editors make the final choice.
Are reviews published?
No, peer reviews remain confidential but may be shared with authors for transparency.
How are conflicts of interest handled?
Reviewers and editors must declare conflicts. If conflicts exist, alternative reviewers are assigned.