Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry Reviewer Guidelines
JIUFD adheres to the ethical policies set forth by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html#three), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) (http://www.wame.org/about/
recommendations-on-publication-ethics-policie), Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf) and Council of Science Editors (http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-3-reviewer-roles-and-responsibilities/).This document is based on similar documents developed by these organizations.
review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals
by experts who are usually not part of the editorial staff. Because
unbiased, independent, critical assessment is an intrinsic part of all
scholarly work, including scientific research, peer review is an
important extension of the scientific process. It is the responsibility
of the journal to ensure that systems are in place for selection of
appropriate reviewers. It is the responsibility of the editor to ensure
that reviewers have access to all materials that may be relevant to the
evaluation of the manuscript, including supplementary material for
e-only publication, and to ensure that reviewer comments are properly
assessed and interpreted in the context of their declared conflicts of
interest. The editor of a journal is ultimately responsible for the
selection of all its content and editorial decisions may be informed by
issues unrelated to the quality of a manuscript, such as suitability for
the journal. An editor can reject any article at any time before
publication, including after acceptance if concerns arise about the
integrity of the work.
The Journal of Istanbul University Faculty
of Dentistry (JIUFD) uses double blind independent peer-review system.
Reviewers contribute to the editorial process by assisting authors to
improve their work and by providing their opinion on the suitability of
the papers for publication in a timely manner. Reviewers should promptly
notify the Editor-in-Chief and excuse themselves from the process if
they will not be able to complete the review by the time frame agreed
upon or think that they are not qualified to provide suggestions. A
manuscript sent for evaluation should be treated as a confidential
document and its content should not be discussed with others. Reviewers
should not seek the identity of the authors. Reviewers cannot use the
information they gained by reviewing a manuscript for their own research
purposes until it is published. Reviewers should provide their
objective criticism based on scientifically and/or logically proven
background. Personal comments are not appropriate. All comments and/or
questions directed to the authors should be stated clearly and
concisely. Reviewers should be alert for inadequate citation of previous
work and similarity between the manuscript under consideration and
published papers. In order to avoid any potential conflict of interest,
reviewers should immediately contact the Editor-in-Chief and refuse to
take part in the editorial process if the manuscript they agreed to
examine is closely related to their ongoing research projects which can
result in competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connection
with the authors.
Reviewers’ Ethical Responsibilities
should respond to the review invitation as soon as they can. Whether
they agree to review or not, delayed replies will slow down the process
- Reviewers should only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the expertise required to carry out a proper assessment.
- Reviewers who agree to review a manuscript must complete their reviews within the specified time period.
should provide journals with personal and professional information that
is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
should always remember that the manuscripts submitted to journals are
privileged communications and authors may be harmed by premature
disclosure of any or all of a manuscript’s details. Reviewers therefore
should keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly
confidential. They must not publicly discuss authors’ work before the
manuscript is published.
- Reviewers must not retain the
manuscript for their personal use and should destroy copies of
manuscripts after submitting their reviews.
- Reviewers should declare their conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists.
should not seek the identity of the authors. If they suspect the
identity of the author(s) they should notify the journal if this
knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
who have reviewed a manuscript before for another journal should inform
the Editor before they complete the review. The Editor can then decide
whether a re-review is appropriate.
- Reviewers should not allow
their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the
nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other
characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
should be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from
being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory
- Reviewers should recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.
reviewing the manuscript, all reviewers should read above-mentioned
electronic documents in order to understand their ethical
Reviewers’ Technical Responsibilities
reviewing a manuscript, reviewers must be sure that they have necessary
expertise and time to complete the process. They must also be sure that
they do not have any potential conflict of interest.
accepting the invitation for review, reviewers should immediately
contact with the journal if they are unable to open text files, figures
or any other supplementary materials.
- Reviewers should
give their overall opinion and general observations of the manuscript.
Their comments should be clear and concise, and should not include any
personal remarks or personal details including their names. A paragraph
that summarizes the overall weaknesses and strengths of the manuscript,
whether it contains novel information that can provide sufficient impact
in their field of expertise would be very useful for the editorial
- Reviewers should describe the manuscript type clearly in their report (Original research, case report or review).
- Reviewers should check the title and make sure that it reflects the content.
- Reviewers should check whether the manuscript conforms to journal standards with respect to length, format and writing style.
should check whether the abstract section represents the content and
conclusions of the manuscript. They should also check whether word
limits and organization adhere to the journal standards (Word limits
are; 250 words for original research articles, 150 words for case
reports and review articles. Abstracts for original research articles
should be structured under purpose, materials and methods, results,
conclusion headings. Abstracts for case report and review articles
should be unstructured).
- Reviewers should check whether the keywords are appropriate and whether they conform to general standards.
should examine the introduction section to check whether it includes
necessary background information on the topic and specific, clearly
identifiable questions to be addressed in the research. The research
hypothesis should have been clearly described in this section.
Board of the JIUFD gives special importance to the repeatability of
experimental research. Accordingly, in the materials and methods
section, authors should be encouraged to provide detailed information on
the experimental process and reviewers should feel free to ask about as
much detail as possible. Reviewers must be sure that the information
provided in the manuscript would enable other researchers to easily
repeat the experiment.
- Reviewers should check the
results section to make sure that the findings are described clearly and
in a logical order. Whenever possible, this order should match that of
materials and methods section. Tables and figures are very important
components of the manuscript and each should be self-explanatory with a
caption. They should be well-designed and appropriately labeled. Data
presented in the tables or figures should not be repeated in the main
text. Reviewers should consider and comment on the number and quality of
the visual elements.
- Reviewers should check the
scientific background and originality of the interpretation provided in
the discussion and conclusion sections. All interpretations should be
supported by the data. Reviewers should encourage the authors to discuss
their findings and to provide logical explanations, also supported by
the data, especially for the inconsistencies between their findings and
that of other researchers. Following the same logical order as previous
sections should be encouraged.
- Reviewers should check
whether the manuscript includes a clear statement of the ethical
considerations concerning clinical or animal studies.
reviewers suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns they
should immediately contact with the editor and provide a detailed
account of their claims.
- Reviewers should check whether
the scientific terminology used in the manuscript follows current
standards in their field of expertise.
- Reviewers should
comment on whether the manuscript conforms to accepted rules of English
grammar, punctuation, spelling and use of capitals. It is not the
responsibility of the reviewer to correct such errors.
are free to provide other suggestions which are not covered above to
the authors. Requests of private communication with the Editor regarding
the manuscript should be addressed to the Editorial Office at
- Reviewer must provide a
final recommendation on the manuscript's suitability for publication in
its current form. “Accept submission” indicates that the manuscript can
be published as is. If the reviewer’s final decision is “revisions
required”, any major or minor changes in the manuscript must be
confirmed by the reviewer who had originally suggested the revisions. if
the “decline submission” decision has been reached, the manuscript has
been found unsuitable for publication by the reviewer. The reason for
any type of final recommendation, especially the “decline submission”,
should be explained in detail.
- Reviewers will be
provided with standard electronic forms via e-mail. They will be asked
to fill out these documents and send back to email@example.com Reviewers may also send their additional comments in separate text files.
finalizing the review process, a certificate will be awarded to the
reviewer as a token of journal’s appreciation and as a formal proof of
completing the process.