Journal of Advances in Oral Health

Peer review

What is Peer Review?

Peer review is the evaluation of work by a group of people (Peers) having same level of competencies and working in same field. It is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers in the relevant research areas assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity, and significance to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in their journal.

How does it work?

When a manuscript is submitted to a journal, it is assessed to see if it meets the criteria for submission. It involves checking of paper as per the Journal’s guidelines and if it does, the editorial team will select the paper for peer-review process. Then it is assigned to potential peer reviewers within the same field of research to review the manuscript and they suggest recommendations and modifications. The detailed valuable feedback from reviewers helps in improving the quality of research and make it suitable for publication.

 

Double blind peer review

The journal follows double blind peer review which means both are anonymous for each other. Neither author knows reviewer nor the reviewer does and it helps in maintaining the quality and integrity of the work. The double-blind peer review process aims to ensure that research papers are evaluated based on their content and merit rather than the reputation or background of the authors.

 

On being asked to review, please consider the following points:

Does the manuscript you are being asked to review truly match your expertise? From article information, first see whether the article is falling under your expertise or not. The managing editor or editorial office who has approached you may not know your work intimately and may only be aware of your work in a broader context. Only accept an invitation if you are competent to review the article and have expertise in the field.

 

Do you have time to review the manuscript? Reviewing a manuscript can be quite time-consuming. The time taken to review can vary from field to field, but a manuscript will take on an average, 4-6 hours to review properly. Will you have sufficient time before the deadline stipulated in the invitation to conduct a thorough review? If you cannot conduct the review, let the managing editor/editorial assistant know immediately if possible, and you have option to choose the time frame, so choose as per your availability.

 

Are there any potential conflicts of interest? A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate you from reviewing a manuscript, but full disclosure to the editor will allow them to make an informed decision. For example, reviewer's personal, professional, or financial interests could potentially influence their judgment and objectivity. These should all be listed when responding to the editor’s invitation for review.

Conducting review

Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially; the manuscript you have been asked to review should not be disclosed to a third party. You should not attempt to contact the author.

Be aware when you submit your review that any recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision made by the editor.

Evaluate the manuscript according to the following.

Peer Review Checklist

S. No	Particulars	Details Description
1.	Title	Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript? Is the title complete?
2.	Abstract	Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?
3.	Keywords	Do the keywords reflect the focus of the manuscript?
4.	Background	Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status, and significance of the study?
5.	Methods	Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail? Are the study methods are sound and appropriate? Is statistical analysis appropriate.
6.	Results	Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study? Does the manuscript meet the requirements of Biostatistics?
7.	Discussion	Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly, and logically? Are the findings and their applicability /relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner? Is the discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?
8.	Illustrations and tables	Are the figures, diagrams, and tables sufficient, good quality, and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents? Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., and better legends?
9.	References	Does the manuscript cite appropriately the latest, important and authoritative references in the introduction and discussion sections?
10.	Quality of manuscript organization and presentation	Is the manuscript well, concisely, and coherently organized and presented? Is the style, language, and grammar accurate and appropriate?
11.	Research methods and reporting	The article is of interest to members of the education research community?
12.	Ethics statements	For all manuscripts, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?

 

Is the manuscript clearly laid out? all articles and the key elements present: abstract, introduction, material and methods, results, discussion, and references? Consider each element in turn:

1. Title: Does it clearly describe the manuscript?
2. Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the manuscript?
3. Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction is one to two paragraphs long. It should summarize relevant research to provide context and explain what findings of others, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, hypothesis (es); general experimental design or method.
4. Material and methods: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the manuscript identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
5. Results: This is where the author(s) should explain in words what he/she/they discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section. Do the figures and tables inform the reader, are they an important part of the manuscript? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g. bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical.
6. Discussion and conclusion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

 

Language

If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand science, you do not need to correct the English. You may wish to bring it to the attention of the editors and also can give minor revision to the author.

 

Previous research

If the article builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?

 

Ethical Issues

Plagiarism: If you suspect that a manuscript is a substantial copy of another work or presented without citing the previous work in as much details as possible, let the editor know (also can ask for plagiarism report of the paper).

 

Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in a manuscript to be untrue, discuss it with the editor.

Other ethical concerns: If the research is medical in nature, has confidentiality been maintained? If there has been a violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects these should also be identified.

 

Here we have mentioned some less important considerations for a reviewer:

1. Minor Spellings: It can be ignored as in copyediting it will be checked again before publishing.
2. Grammar Issues: Minor grammatical errors can be ignored and should focus more on scientific parameters.

 

Reference Style: Should not focus more on reference style, anyway it also will be checked before publishing as per Journal format at the time of copyediting.

Ethical Guidelines for peer reviewers

The journal follows the ethical guidelines as mentioned by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines has published Ethical Guideline for Peer Reviewers. We ensure that peer review is fair, unbiased, and timely. Discussion to accept or reject a manuscript for publication is based on the manuscript’s importance, originality, and clarity.

Originality

Is the manuscript sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the manuscript adhere to the journal’s standards? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in: Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field? You might wish to do a quick literature search using tools such as

www.cochranelibrary.com/

This is to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor.

Join as a reviewer

Review of manuscripts is essential to the publication process, and you will learn a lot about scientific publishing by serving as a reviewer. We cordially invite you to join our team of journal reviewers. You can simply join as a reviewer by MPRP (Manuscript Peer Review Process). First time user needs to register first, after email verification can join as a reviewer by completing the profile with all required details.

Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially; the manuscript you have been asked to review should not be disclosed to a third party. You should not attempt to contact the author. Be aware when you submit your review that any recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision by the editor.

 

Evaluate the manuscript according to the following:

Is the manuscript sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the manuscript adhere to the journal’s standards? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in: Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field?

This is to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor.

Comments for the editor

Once you have completed your evaluation of the manuscript the next step is to write up your report. If it looks like you might miss your deadline, let the editor know.

Download the manuscript in word format from the link provided at www.mprp.in manuscript submission portal (Manuscript Peer-Review Process called MPRP) after your reviewer login.

Provide your report online by checking various boxes, entering comments in ‘Comments for editor’ and Comments for authors’. Provide a quick summary of the manuscript in ‘Comments to the editor’. It serves the dual purpose of reminding the editor of the details of the report and also reassuring the author and editor that you understood the manuscript. You may make changes/corrections in the word document of the manuscript and send it to the editor by using the browse file button.

The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section (preferably identifying page and line number). Comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name.

Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are better able to understand the basis of the comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or reflected by data.

 

When you make a recommendation regarding a manuscript, it is worth considering the categories an editor will likely use for classifying the article.

1. Publishable without revision (No Revision)
2. Publishable after a few revision (Minor Revision)
3. Publishable only after applying my corrections
4. HUGE Revision must be done (Major revision)
5. REJECT

In cases of 2 to 4 clearly identify what revision is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to see/ review the revised article.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidelines

Peer reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and credibility of research. That is why it is essential to approach this responsibility with transparency and care more...

How to submit review report

Review report can be directly submitted to the editor/editorial office by MPRP Portal. These things should be kept in mind before submitting the review comments:

1. Comments should be understandable for author and for Journal Editors also.
2. Always check the checklist and bear in mind does the paper is justifying all questions or not?
3. Must mention strength and weakness of manuscript in polite and well-organized manner
4. It should be clear and concise and must check the clarity of comments before submitting

Article peer review process

Peer review process can be broadly summarized into various steps, although these steps can vary slightly between journals as mentioned in the diagram below.

 

Editors Feedback: “Reviewers should remember that they are representing the readers of the journal. Will the readers of this particular journal find this informative and useful?”

 

1. Submission of Manuscript: The corresponding or submitting authors submits manuscript to the journal via www.mprp.in manuscript submission portal – Manuscript Peer-Review Process called MPRP or sometimes in few exceptional cases journal may accept submission by email.

 

2. Editorial office scrutiny: The journal checks the manuscript composition and arrangement against the journal's author’s guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and style. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.

 

3. Initial evaluation by Editors: The Editor checks that the manuscript appropriate for the journal is sufficiently original and interesting. If suitable and significant for journal assigned to reviewers and If not, the manuscript may be revised and will be considered for re-submission after modifications.

 

4. Invitation to Reviewers: The handling editor sends invitations to review the manuscript to appropriate reviewers from the same field and with expertise in same. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly this is second, but there is some variation between journals.

 

5. Response to Invitations: Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

 

6. Review is conducted: The reviewer sets time aside to read the manuscript several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper after giving possible reasons and clarifications of rejection without further work, otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it, or else with a request for revision or highlight as either major or minor are required before it is reconsidered. Reviewer should
7. Recognition to reviewer’s work: After reviewing a manuscript, the reviewers receives a thank you mail from MPRP (Editorial Office) in the journal peer-review process, reviewers may send their thanks mail with web of science to receive verified recognition for their work. Forward your thank you contribution mail to reviews@webofscience.com to add your review record to your WOS account. Ther certificate of reviewing can also be obtained simply from MRRP – Reviewers panel after final decision on the paper.

 

8. Editor evaluates the reviews: The editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall final decision. If the review differs widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before deciding or also can suggest some revisions and modifications.

 

9. Decision is communicated: The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.

 

10. Acceptance confirmation: If accepted, the manuscript is sent to production. If the manuscript is rejected, it should be informed to author with proper justification of rejection. Or in some cases the handling editor includes constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article and suggest to submit again to make the whole process again with new reviewers. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter to inform them of the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.

 

11. Post Acceptance: After acceptance of the paper, it is moved to production stage, where copyediting, proofreading and quality checks occurs to make the article suitable for publishing and Galley proof also is shared with the author to avoid any mistakes in final version (Print + Online) of the paper. After completion of all steps, as per the decision of Editor-in-Chief (Final decision holder) of the journal it is published online and in print version as well.