Peer reviewers are entrusted with a vital role in the publication process at the Journal of Clinical Advances in Dentistry (JCAD). Their contributions ensure that research is accurate, ethical, and valuable to the scientific community. This section outlines the ethical standards and professional responsibilities expected from reviewers.

Core Responsibilities

• Provide objective, evidence-based assessments of manuscripts
• Offer constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe
• Maintain strict confidentiality of the review process
• Disclose any conflicts of interest promptly

Ethical Standards

Reviewers must conduct themselves according to ethical principles aligned with COPE and ICMJE recommendations. Ethical obligations include:

• Not misusing unpublished data for personal gain
• Respecting authors’ intellectual property
• Alerting editors to suspected misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data falsification)

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Content should not be discussed with others without prior permission from the editor.

Constructive Feedback

Reviewer comments should be clear, respectful, and designed to guide authors. Criticism should focus on scientific content and methodology rather than personal views.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline assignments if personal, financial, or professional relationships could bias their judgment.

Reporting Standards

• Evaluate whether the study design and methodology are appropriate
• Ensure statistical analyses are sound and reproducible
• Check whether ethical approvals and informed consent are documented
• Verify that conclusions are supported by data

Timeliness

Reviewers should meet deadlines or notify the editorial office if extensions are required, allowing reassignment to avoid delays in publication.

Recognition of Reviewer Contributions

JCAD values reviewer contributions and may provide acknowledgment certificates, annual listings of reviewers, or optional public recognition with consent.

FAQs

What if I cannot review a manuscript?

Notify the editorial office immediately so another reviewer can be assigned.

Can I suggest revisions beyond the scope of the study?

Suggestions should be reasonable, relevant, and feasible within the study’s design.

What if I suspect duplicate submission?

Contact the editor confidentially with supporting details for investigation.