Policies of Peer Review - Journal of Dentomaxillofacial

| Post date: 2017/07/29 |

Journal of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Pathology and Surgery is an open access peer reviewed journal that publishes papers of significance in all areas of clinical and basic neuroscience.
It aims to publish original, high quality papers related to any area of neurological sciences −clinical and basic− including neurology, neurosurgery, psychiatry, psychology, neuro-ophthalmology, neuro-otology, neuro-urology, neuro-pharmacology, molecular and cellular neurosciences in the format of Original Papers, Review Articles, BriefCommunications, Case reports and Letters to the Editor.

• Peer Review Process:

3DJ adopts a blind expert peer review process. Authors must provide an email address as all communication will be by email. Two files must be furnished: the covering letter and the manuscript in MS Word. The covering letter should be uploaded as a file not for review. All articles submitted to the Journal must comply with these instructions. Failure to do so will result in return of the manuscript and possible delay in publication. All submissions to 3DJ are assessed by an Editor, who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Manuscripts not submitted elsewhere for publication will only be considered. Each unsolicited manuscript is sent to 2-3 reviewers, who evaluate it accordingly with a “single-blind peer review” procedure which may span for period of 3-4 weeks.
We do not release reviewers' identities to authors or to other reviewers, except when reviewers specifically ask to be identified. Unless they feel strongly, however, we prefer that reviewers should remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond.
• Writing the Review:
The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision but the review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the major weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and see in broad terms what needs to be done to improve the manuscript for publication elsewhere. Referees should not feel obliged to provide detailed, constructive advice regarding minor criticisms of the manuscript if it does not meet the criteria for the journal.
Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but it is helpful if the main points are stated in the comments for transmission to the authors. The ideal review should answer the following questions:

Who will be interested in reading the paper, and why?
What are the main claims of the paper and how significant are they?
How does the paper stand out from others in its field?
Are the claims novel? If not, which published papers compromise novelty?
Are the claims convincing? If not, what further evidence is needed to strengthen the paper?
Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
If the manuscript is unacceptable, is the study sufficiently promising to encourage the authors to resubmit?
Is the manuscript clearly written?
Would readers outside the discipline benefit from a schematic of the main result to accompany publication?
Should the authors be asked to provide supplementary methods or data to accompany the paper online? (Such data might include source code for modeling studies, detailed experimental protocols or mathematical derivations.)
Have the authors done themselves justice without praising their claims extremely?
Have they been fair in their approach to previous literature?
Have they provided sufficient methodological detail that the experiments could be reproduced?
Is the statistical analysis of the data sound, and does it conform to the journal's guidelines?
Are there any special ethical concerns arising from the use of human or other animal subjects?

• Guidelines for Reviewers
Any unpublished article submitted to you for review must be protected as a document. Please avoid referring to its results and making individual use of the unpublished article.

A reviewer should consciously adopt a positive, impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review. Your position should be that of the author’s ally, with the aim of promoting effective and accurate scientific communication.
If you are not able to review the submitted article for any reason, please notify us of your withdrawal as soon as possible.
On average, the journal's reviewing process takes 2 to 4 months. After receiving the review report, authors have two weeks to submit their revised version.
Please do not make any specific statement about acceptability of a paper in your comments for transmission to the author but advise the editor on the sheet provided.
In your review, please consider the following aspects on the manuscript as far as they are applicable:

Importance (clinical or otherwise) of the question or subject studied and originality.
Adequacy of abstract (250-300 words) and key words (2-5)that were set based on Mesh.
Appropriateness of approach or experimental design, adequacy of experimental techniques (including statistics where appropriate and need for statistical assessment).
Are the methods used adequately described? Are they appropriate? Are the patients studied adequately described and their condition defined?
Results relevant to problem posed? Well presented?
Soundness of conclusions and interpretation. Interpretation and conclusions warranted by the data? Reasonable speculation? Is the message clear?
Relevance of discussion (Discussion should be organised just based on results and all article should have limitation and recommendation in the text based on results)
References up to date and relevant? Any glaring omissions?
Relevance of the figures and table, clarity of legends and titles (up to 2-6 figures and tables).
If not acceptable can the paper be made so?

Ethical aspects (The Ethics Committee of … University of Medical Sciences approved the study (Ethical code: IR…...REC….). Written informed consent from all participants in the study, and they were assured that their personal information would remain confidential. Also, exercise therapy was carried out for the control group after the study.
This trail was also registered at www…... ir (IRCT…..).

Overall presentation (including writing style, clarity of writing)
Journal writing pattern should be followed and terms used for headlines should be taken into consideration.
According to the type of study, the number of references in the article should be considered and preferably 20-30% of the references can only be related to the last 3-5 years.
The journal is not allowed to accept articles that do not provide the ethics registration code. Please note

In comments intended for the authors, criticism should be presented dispassionately, and abrasive remarks avoided.
Suggested revisions should be couched as such, and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Please distinguish between revisions considered essential and those judged as merely desirable.
Even if we do not accept a paper, we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it. For this reason, please give detailed comments (with references, if appropriate) that will help both the editors to decide on the paper and the authors to improve it.
Your criticism, arguments, and suggestions concerning that paper will be most useful to the editor if they are carefully documented.
You are not requested to correct mistakes in grammar, but any help in this regard will be appreciated. Native editing will be done for all accepted articles.
The editor gratefully receives a reviewer’s recommendations, but since the editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer should not expect the editor to honour his or her every recommendation.

• Reviewing Peer Review:
After review process, the Editor-in-Chief chooses between the following decisions:
· Accept
· Minor Revision
· Major Revision
· Reject
If the decision is Minor Revision or Major Revision, authors have 30 days to resubmit the revised manuscript. Authors may contact to journal staff if they require an extension.
• Submission of Revised Manuscripts:
While submitting a revised manuscript, contributors are requested to include a point to point response to reviewer's comments at the beginning of the revised manuscript text file itself or/and as comments next to the text. In addition, if any changes are made to the manuscript, please mark the changes as underlined or highlighted text in the article.
• Registration, article processing is free of charge for authors, and there is no publication fee.

• Plagiarism Policy: The author(s) must avoid plagiarism of any kind and abide by the principle of intellectual property and joint data ownership in the case of the originality of the manuscript and research carried out in collaboration with a supervisor(s) and/or other researchers. The need to validate new observations by showing that experiments are reproducible should not be interpreted as plagiarism, provided that the data to be confirmed are explicitly quoted. Researchers should ensure, if any aspect of their work is delegated, that the person to whom it is delegated has the competence to carry it out. The journal will judge any case of plagiarism on its own metrics. If plagiarism is detected, either by the editors, peer reviewers or editorial staff at any stage before publication of a manuscript, before or after acceptance, during editing or at page proof stage, we will alert the author(s), asking her or him to either rewrite the text or quote the text exactly and to cite the original source. If the plagiarism is extensive, the article may be rejected. If extensive plagiarism is detected after publication of a manuscript, the article will be deleted from the archive, this Plagiarism will be announced on journal website and the author(s) name(s) will be put in blacklist.

• Open Access Policy: This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.

Archiving policy

Long-term preservation service(s) where the journal is currently archived -Other(یکتا وب)

View: 4840 Time(s) | Print: 654 Time(s) | Email: 0 Time(s) | 0 Comment(s)