The Journal of Clinical Advances in Dentistry (JCAD) follows a rigorous and transparent double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, reliability, and integrity of all published articles. This process is designed to provide fair evaluation and constructive feedback to authors while upholding international best practices.

Steps in the Peer Review Process

1. Initial Editorial Screening: The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor evaluates submissions for scope, formatting, and ethical compliance.
2. Plagiarism Check: Manuscripts are screened with plagiarism detection software to ensure originality.
3. Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts passing initial checks are sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
4. Review Period: Reviewers evaluate manuscripts for originality, methodology, ethical standards, and contribution to the field.
5. Reviewer Reports: Constructive, detailed feedback and recommendations (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) are submitted.
6. Editorial Decision: Based on reports, the editor issues a decision, which may include revisions or acceptance.
7. Revision Process: Authors respond to reviewer comments and resubmit within a specified timeframe.
8. Final Review & Acceptance: Revised manuscripts may be re-reviewed before final acceptance and copyediting.
9. Proof & Publication: Accepted manuscripts undergo proofing before online publication with DOI assignment.

Criteria for Review

• Originality and novelty of research
• Relevance to dentistry and oral health sciences
• Clarity of objectives and methods
• Scientific rigor and validity of results
• Ethical compliance (human and animal studies)
• Contribution to clinical or scientific advancement

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, absence of conflicts of interest, and prior experience. JCAD maintains a diverse reviewer pool to ensure balanced evaluations.

Turnaround Time

The average review time is 4–6 weeks. Authors are notified promptly of delays, and expedited reviews may be arranged for time-sensitive research.

Ethical Considerations

All parties in the review process must adhere to ethical standards:

• Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest
• Editors ensure impartial handling of manuscripts
• Confidentiality is maintained at every stage

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a detailed justification. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editorial committee.

Post-Publication Review

JCAD encourages post-publication commentary and discussion. Readers can submit letters to the editor, which may undergo peer review before publication.

FAQs

How many reviewers are assigned per manuscript?

Typically, two reviewers. For interdisciplinary papers, additional reviewers may be consulted.

Can authors suggest reviewers?

Yes, authors may suggest potential reviewers, but final selection is at the editor’s discretion.

Are reviews anonymous?

Yes, JCAD follows a strict double-blind peer review process.