Peer-Review Policy

Peer-Review Policy

Journal of Endodontics and Restorative Dentistry applies a double-blind peer-review process for submitted manuscripts. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

All submitted manuscripts must be original, approved by all authors, and not under consideration by another journal. Manuscripts are first evaluated by the editorial office for compliance with the journal’s aims and scope, author guidelines, ethical standards, and basic scientific requirements. Similarity checks are performed using iThenticate plagiarism detection software.

Manuscripts that do not comply with the journal’s scope, ethical standards, publication policies, or minimum scientific requirements may be rejected at the preliminary evaluation stage without external peer review.

Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation are assigned to at least two independent external reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript in terms of originality, scientific importance, methodology, ethical compliance, clarity, validity of the results and conclusions, adequacy of references, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, confidential, and timely evaluations. Reviewers must decline the invitation if they do not have sufficient expertise, cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe, or have any conflict of interest that may affect their impartiality.

All communication between authors and reviewers is mediated by the editorial office. Reviewers do not communicate directly with authors. Reviewer reports are evaluated by the editor-in-chief or the assigned editor, who makes the final editorial decision.

Possible editorial decisions include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, rejection, or referral to an additional reviewer when necessary. If reviewer reports are conflicting or insufficient, the editor may invite an additional reviewer or make a decision based on the available reports and editorial assessment.

The final decision regarding publication rests with the editor-in-chief. A favorable reviewer recommendation does not guarantee acceptance, and an unfavorable recommendation does not automatically result in rejection. Editorial decisions are based on the scientific merit, ethical integrity, methodological quality, and relevance of the manuscript.

The journal aims to complete the peer-review process in a timely manner. The average time from submission to the final decision is approximately four weeks; however, this period may vary depending on reviewer availability, revision requirements, and editorial workload.

The journal is committed to ensuring a fair, unbiased, and transparent review process. Manuscripts are evaluated without discrimination based on authors’ nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion, political opinion, institutional affiliation, academic status, or other personal characteristics.