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.