Reviewer Guidelines
Peer reviewers are central to maintaining the scientific integrity of the Journal of Clinical Advances in Dentistry (JCAD). These guidelines outline the ethical and professional standards expected of all reviewers, consistent with COPE and ICMJE principles.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
- Evaluate manuscripts objectively based on scientific merit and originality
- Provide constructive, clear, and respectful feedback
- Complete reviews within the agreed timeline
- Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript content
- Declare conflicts of interest promptly
Confidentiality
All manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers may not discuss, copy, or share manuscript content with others unless authorized by the editor.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should decline assignments where conflicts exist, such as:
- Financial interests related to the research
- Personal or professional relationships with authors
- Competing research projects that could bias judgment
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers should consider the following while assessing manuscripts:
- Clarity and significance of the research question
- Appropriateness of study design and methodology
- Accuracy of data analysis and interpretation
- Ethical compliance (human/animal studies)
- Relevance of references and literature review
- Clarity of writing and logical presentation
Providing Feedback
Reviewer reports should be detailed, courteous, and designed to help authors improve. Harsh or unprofessional language is unacceptable. Constructive criticism should include suggestions for improvement.
Timeliness
Reviews should be submitted within 2–4 weeks. Reviewers unable to meet deadlines must notify the editorial office promptly so alternatives can be arranged.
Ethical Oversight
Reviewers should report any concerns about plagiarism, data fabrication, ethical violations, or duplicate submissions to the editor immediately.
Recognition of Reviewers
JCAD acknowledges the critical contributions of reviewers. With consent, reviewers may be recognized annually on the journal’s website and in editorial notes.
Training and Development
Reviewers are encouraged to participate in reviewer training programs and stay updated on peer review best practices.
FAQs
What if I cannot complete a review on time?
Notify the editorial office immediately so another reviewer can be assigned.
Can I suggest additional experiments?
Yes, but ensure suggestions are reasonable and within the scope of the study.
What should I do if I suspect plagiarism?
Inform the editor confidentially, providing evidence for review.