Review Model: Double-Blind
IJDIR operates a double-blind peer review process. In this model, neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities during the review process. This approach minimises potential bias and ensures that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scientific merit.
🎭 Anonymity Preserved
Authors must ensure that their submitted manuscript file contains no identifying information. A separate Title Page file (containing author names and affiliations) must be submitted alongside the anonymised manuscript. See the Author Instructions for details.
Review Stages
- Submission & Receipt: The corresponding author receives an automated acknowledgment upon submission.
- Editorial Pre-Screening (≤5 working days): The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor checks the manuscript for scope, basic quality, and compliance with author guidelines. Manuscripts failing this check are returned without external review.
- Plagiarism Screening: All manuscripts passing pre-screening undergo automated similarity checking.
- Reviewer Assignment (≤7 days from acceptance to review): The handling editor identifies and invites a minimum of two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area.
- Peer Review (≤21 days for reviewers): Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit their comments using the structured reviewer form.
- Editorial Decision: Based on reviewer reports, the handling editor makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who communicates the final decision to the corresponding author.
- Revision & Re-review: Manuscripts requiring revision are returned to the authors. Revised manuscripts may undergo a second round of review if major revisions were requested.
- Final Acceptance & Production: Accepted manuscripts enter the production pipeline for typesetting, proofreading, and publication.
Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts against the following criteria:
| Criterion | Description |
|---|---|
| Originality | Does the work make a novel contribution to the field? |
| Scientific Rigour | Are the methodology, data analysis, and conclusions sound? |
| Clinical Relevance | Does the work have meaningful implications for dental practice? |
| Clarity | Is the manuscript clearly written, well-structured, and logically presented? |
| Ethics Compliance | Are ethical considerations properly addressed and documented? |
| References | Is the literature review comprehensive and up to date? |
| Data Integrity | Are figures, tables, and statistical analyses accurate and reproducible? |
Editorial Decisions
Following peer review, one of four decisions is communicated to the corresponding author:
- Accept as is: The manuscript is accepted without any further changes required.
- Minor Revision: The manuscript requires small changes. Authors typically have 2–3 weeks to revise.
- Major Revision: Substantial changes are required. The revised manuscript will undergo further review. Authors typically have 4–6 weeks to revise.
- Reject: The manuscript does not meet the standards of IJDIR. Reviewer comments are provided to assist authors with future submissions elsewhere.
📝 Reviewer Comments
All editorial decisions are accompanied by the anonymised reviewer comments. IJDIR is committed to providing constructive, actionable feedback to all authors regardless of the decision.
Indicative Timelines
| Stage | Target Timeframe |
|---|---|
| Preliminary assessment | ~26 days |
| Peer review | ~35 days |
| Publication after acceptance | ~30 days |
Becoming a Reviewer
IJDIR welcomes qualified dental researchers and clinicians to join our reviewer panel. Reviewers play an indispensable role in maintaining scientific standards. If you wish to be considered as a peer reviewer, please contact the editorial office at [email protected] with your CV and areas of expertise.
Last reviewed and updated: January 2025. This policy is subject to periodic review by the Editorial Board of IJDIR.