Peer review overview
Peer review processes of the Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry mainly aims to strength the manuscript and improve the quality of the manuscript. To be published in Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry, manuscripts should be in accordance with the aim and scope of the journal and should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in contemporary pediatric dental practice, education and research.
Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry performs double blind reviewing, where both the reviewer and author remain anonymous throughout the review process. At least two reviewers are needed for peer review. All type of submissions to Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry is subjected to peer-review. Corrections of published articles are also being peer-reviewed. Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry gives highly importance on the comments and suggestions of reviewers to reach its publication quality.
Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry makes every effort to ensure the highest standards in publication ethics are upheld and takes all forms of misconduct seriously. Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry will take all necessary action in accordance with COPE guidelines. Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry performs plagiarism check and it is required for each study that has undergone the review process. The iThenticate plagiarism checker software is used for plagiarism detection and the acceptable similarity ratio is less than 20%.
Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry uses secure online submission system. Reviewers are asked to send their peer-review reports via the online submission system. However, Editor-in-Chief may contact to reviewers via email in case of any technical issues.
Peer review steps
1. Initial Editorial Check
All submitted articles to the Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry are initially subjected to technical check for its appropriateness to journal’s Author Guidelines, and aim and scope by the Editor-in-Chief. This step is the one to confirm whether the submitted articles are in line with the aim and scope of the journal, have adequate language, have original novelty and meet publication policies. Of these articles which cannot meet these requirements are rejected without external review. Decision mails are sent to the corresponding authors immediately. Eligible articles are sent to the assigned Associate Editor or handled by Editor-in-Chief for further review.
2. Reviewer Selection
The Editor-in-Chief and/or assigned Associate Editor send the potential manuscripts to be of potential interest to journal’s readership for formal review. At least two reviewers are needed for peer review. Editor(s) choose the potential reviewers according to many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and own previous experience of a reviewer’s characteristics. Each article needs to be evaluated by at least two reviewers. Reviewers are obliged to guarantee that they will not share any process or document about the study they are evaluating.
Reviewers are invited to review a manuscript via online submission system. Reviewers are asked to log in to the online submission and peer review system of the Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry and create an account as a reviewer. In case of technical problems, editors may contact to the potential reviewers via personal email.
3. Reviewer Reports
Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry requests the reviewers to send their reports within 14 days. If additional time is need, reviewer(s) should directly contact to the Editorial Office (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry not only asks the Reviewers to provide the Editor(s) with the information needed to reach a decision but also to instruct the authors to help the paper to be strengthened. Negative review should explain to the authors the major weaknesses of their manuscript and guide how to improve the manuscript. We also welcome confidential comments to the editor.
Reviewers are kindly asked to review the papers based on the following questions:
- Does title reflect the study?
- Is abstract simple and understandable? Does it reflect the entire text?
- Is literature check is acceptable in Introduction? Is rationale of the study clearly stated? Are aim and hypotheses of the study clearly stated?
- Are the validity of the approach, quality of the data and quality of presentation are acceptable? Is methodology appropriate? Are appropriate statistical tests performed to justify the findings?
- Are findings and results of the study clearly described? Do tables and figures represent the findings of the study? Do tables and figures meet appropriate technical requirements? Are legends understandable?
- Is discussion properly structured? Are findings of the study clearly discussed with previous studies? Are strengths and limitations of the study described?
- Are references related to study? Is literature check appropriate to discuss the findings of the study?
- Is language acceptable? Does the manuscript need additional language revision?
We ask reviewers to keep their identify confidential. They should not identify themselves to authors while the manuscript is under consideration without the editor’s knowledge. Once a reviewer has revealed his or her identity to the author, authors must inform the editor as soon as possible.
Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry does not suppress reviewers’ reports. However, if there is rude language or comments, we ask reviewers to avoid statements that may cause needless offence. Editors may seek advice about submitted papers not only from technical reviewers but also on any aspect of a paper that raises concerns such as ethical issues.
Reviewers may like to see the revised manuscripts. When reviewers agree to revise a manuscript, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. Once the authors have made appropriate revision and submitted revision files, we generally send the revised manuscript to the same reviewers. In case of any kind of return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact, we may need any further advice and the revised manuscript may be also sent to additional reviewers.
Editors may not send a resubmitted manuscript back to the reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms and have not properly responded to each concern.
4. Editorial Decision
Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry gives highly importance on the comments and suggestions of reviewers to reach its publication quality. Peer review processes of the Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry mainly aims to strength the manuscript and improve the quality of the manuscript. Thus, the arguments and comments raised by each reviewer and by the authors are carefully evaluated by the Editors Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry.
As in all publishing decisions, the ultimate decision whether to publish is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief of Contemporary Pediatric Dentistry. The Editor-in-Chief then makes a decision based on the Associate Editor and Reviewers’ advice. The possible decisions are:
- Revision required: Authors are invited to revise the manuscript and to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached.
- Reject and resubmit: Authors are invited to make significantly extensive revision and then resubmit as a new submission.
- Reject: Authors are NOT invited to make any revision or resubmission.
For any general questions and comments about the peer-review process, the journal or its editorial policies that are not addressed here, we encourage reviewers to contact to the Editor-in-Chief (email@example.com). Questions about a specific manuscript should be directed to the editor who is handling the manuscript.