FOR REVIEWERS

Peer 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. 

European Annals of Dental Sciences (EADS) 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. 

All reviewers must adhere to COPE “Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers” principles during evaluation processes. Other responsibilities of the reviewers are; 

·        Upon 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 process.

·        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.

·        Reviewers 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 and review articles, 150 words for case reports. Abstracts for original research articles and reviews should be structured under purpose, materials and methods, result, conclusion headings. Abstracts for case report should be unstructured).

·        Reviewers should check whether the keywords are appropriate and whether they conform to general standards.

·        Reviewers 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.

·        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.

·        If 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.

·        Reviewers 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.

·        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”, the reviewer who had originally suggested the revisions must confirm any major or minor changes in the manuscript. If the “decline submission” decision has been reached, the reviewer has found the manuscript unsuitable for publication. 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. Reviewers may also send their additional comments in separate text files.

·        Upon 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.