Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Scientific Dental Journal is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that encompasses all topics of oral and dental sciences including both basic and clinical aspects.

Scientific Dental Journal is dedicated to publish original research article, review article and also case report. The editors will carefully select manuscript to present the most recent findings in basic and clinical sciences. All professionals concerned with oral and dental issues will find this journal a most valuable update to keep them abreast of the latest scientific development.

 

Section Policies

Review Articles

Review Article should consist of no more than 10,000 words, not including the words in abstract, references, table, figure, and figure legend. The manuscript should have no more than six figures and/or tables in total and no more than 200 references.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Original Article

Research Article should consist of no more than 3,500 words, not including the words in abstract, references, table, figure, and figure legend. The manuscript should have no more than six figures and/or tables in total and no more than 40 references.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Report

Case Report should consist of no more than 3,500 words, not including the words in abstract, references, table, figure, and figure legend. The manuscript should have no more than six figures and/or tables in total and no more than 40 references.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Scientific Dental Journal will be selected and blind peer-reviewed by 2 or more reviewers when necessary, to present valuable and authentic findings in basic and clinical sciences. In addition, details will also be reviewed, including appropriate title; content reflecting abstract; concise writing; clear purpose, study method and figures and/or tables; and summary supported by content. The reviewing process will take generally 2-3 months depends on sufficiency of information provided.

Reviewers were selected based on their specialties that fit to the topic. Additional reviewer/s can also be pointed when necessary. Author can suggest reviewer/s that not having publication together within five years and should not be member/s of the same research institution.

 

Publication Frequency

Scientific Dental Journal is a triennially journal published in the end of January, May and September.

 

Open Access Policy

Scientific Dental Journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Creative Commons License

Scientific Dental Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 

Plagiarism Screening Policy

All manuscripts submitted to Scientific Dental Journal will be screened for plagiarism with similarity score not exceeding 30% by using Turnitin Plagiarism Checker.

 

Conflict of Interest Policy

Author’s Conflict of Interest 

At the point of submission, Scientific Dental Journal requires that each author reveal any personal and/or financial interests or connections, direct or indirect, or other situations that might raise the question of bias in the work reported or the conclusions, implications, or opinions stated. When considering whether you should declare a conflicting interest or connection, please consider the conflict of interest test: Is there any arrangement that would embarrass you or any of your co-authors if it was to emerge after publication and you had not declared it? 

Corresponding authors are responsible to confirm whether they or their co-authors have any conflicts of interest to declare, and to provide details of these. The statement includes any information regarding whether the manuscript is under consideration for other publication, or whether you have any patents that relevant to the manuscript. If the manuscript is published, any conflict of interest information will be written in the Conflict of Interest statement.

Author’s Acknowledgement

 Authors whose manuscripts are submitted for publication must declare all relevant sources of funding in support of the preparation of a manuscript. Scientific Dental Journal requires full disclosure of financial support as to whether it is from government agencies, the pharmaceutical or any other industry, or any other source. Authors are required to specify sources of funding for the study and to indicate whether or not the manuscript was reviewed by the sponsor prior to submission. This information should be included in the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript.

In addition to disclosure of direct financial support to the authors or their laboratories and prior sponsor-review of the paper, corresponding authors will be asked to disclose all relevant consultancies since the views expressed in the contribution could be influenced by the opinions they have expressed privately as consultants. This information should also be included in the Acknowledgments section of the manuscript.

Reviewer’s Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. As in the case of authors, silence on the part of reviewers concerning potential conflicts may mean either that such conflicts exist that they have failed to disclose, or that conflicts do not exist. Reviewers must not use information of the manuscript they are reviewing before it is being published, to further their own interests. 

 

Protection of Human Subject and Animal in Research Policy

When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the said declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study.

When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed. Further guidance on animal research ethics is available from the International Association of Veterinary Editors’ Consensus Author Guidelines on Animal Ethics and Welfare.

 

Informed Consent Policy

Patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Authors should disclose to these patients whether any potential identifiable material might be available via internet as well as in print after publication. Nonessential identifying details should be omitted.

Scientific Dental Journal decides that patient confidentiality is better guarded by having the authors archive the consent, and instead providing us with a written statement in the manuscript attesting that they have received and archived written patient consent. When informed consent has been obtained, it should be indicated later in the published article.

 

Ethics Statement

Our Publication Ethics are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
  2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
  3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Author should not in general submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced
  4. Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
  5. Authorship of the Paper: The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.
  6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
  7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
  8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

 

Duties of Editor

  1. Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.
  2. Review of Manuscripts: Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
  3. Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
  4. Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.
  5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest

 

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  2. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work
  4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.  Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
  5. Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.