| Clear images and colors | Post date: 2024/10/14 | |
Peer Review Policy and Reviewer Guidelines
Journal of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Pathology and Surgery (3DJ)
Scope and Commitment
3DJ is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal dedicated to the advancement of knowledge in oral and maxillofacial radiology, pathology, and surgery, as well as related dental and medical sciences. The journal upholds rigorous peer review standards to ensure the quality, validity, and relevance of published work.
Peer Review Process
All submitted manuscripts undergo double-blind peer review, meaning that both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous. Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by an editor to determine their suitability for peer review. Those that meet initial criteria are assigned to 2–3 independent expert reviewers.
The peer review process typically takes 2 to 3 weeks, after which the editorial team communicates a decision. Revised manuscripts must be resubmitted within two weeks, along with a detailed response to reviewers’ comments.
Note: Only manuscripts not submitted elsewhere and compliant with journal guidelines are considered. Failure to adhere to submission instructions may result in immediate rejection or delay.
Reviewer Confidentiality and Ethics
- Manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers must not use, share, or refer to any information within the manuscript for personal or professional purposes.
- Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest and decline to review if one exists.
- If unable to complete a review promptly, reviewers should inform the editorial office immediately.
Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript’s scientific merit, originality, clarity, methodology, and ethical integrity. Specifically, reviewers should consider:
- Relevance and originality: Is the study novel and significant to the field?
- Title and abstract: Are they clear, accurate, and informative?
- Introduction: Is the rationale clear and well-supported by literature?
- Methods: Are the methodology, ethical approval, and statistical analysis appropriate and described in sufficient detail?
- Results: Are findings clearly presented and relevant to the study aims?
- Discussion: Are interpretations supported by the data? Are limitations and recommendations included and based on results?
- Conclusion: Is it justified and well-aligned with the study findings?
- Figures and Tables: Are they relevant, high-quality, well-labeled (max 2–6 total), and accompanied by clear legends?
- References: Are they current (preferably 50–60% from the past 3–5 years), relevant, and properly formatted?
- Ethics: Does the manuscript include ethics committee approval (with code), informed consent statements, and registration for clinical trials where applicable?
- Language and structure: Is the manuscript well-organized and written clearly? Authors are not expected to be native speakers, but excessive errors should be flagged.
Providing Feedback
The primary aim of peer review is to guide editorial decisions and help authors improve their work. Reviewers should:
- Provide constructive and respectful feedback
- Clearly distinguish between essential and optional revisions
- Avoid vague statements (e.g., “poor writing”)—instead, be specific and supportive
- Avoid harsh or sarcastic comments
- Avoid making acceptance recommendations in comments to the authors; address such suggestions confidentially to the editor
If rejecting a manuscript, please offer feedback that may help the authors revise for submission elsewhere.
Additional Reviewer Guidance
- Suggest supplementary materials if needed (e.g., detailed protocols, source code, CONSORT checklists).
- Do not recommend acceptance solely based on novelty; assess scientific rigor and reproducibility.
- You are not required to correct grammar, but any such help is appreciated. The journal provides language editing before publication.
Final Note
Editorial decisions are informed by multiple reviews and may not always align with individual recommendations. However, every review is highly valued and contributes significantly to maintaining the quality and reputation of the journal.
|