JIDA Scoping Review Submission Guidelines

Scoping reviews submitted to JIDA should systematically map the breadth and nature of research on a defined topic, highlighting key concepts, evidence types, and knowledge gaps. Authors are expected to follow the structure and standards outlined below to ensure clarity, transparency, and scholarly integrity.

1. Manuscript Structure

A well-structured scoping review manuscript should follow a clear and logical format that enhances readability and scholarly rigor. It begins with a title that is both informative and reflective of the review’s scope, capturing the essence of the topic under investigation. The abstract, typically 200–300 words, should concisely summarize the review’s objectives, methodological approach, key findings, and broader implications. Authors should include 4 to 6 keywords that accurately represent the content and facilitate indexing across academic databases. The introduction must define the topic, explain its relevance, and articulate the specific objectives guiding the review. In the methods section, authors should detail the review protocol, eligibility criteria, search strategy, data charting process, and synthesis approach—ideally referencing established frameworks such as PRISMA-ScR. The results section should present the mapped findings using thematic, categorical, or chronological organization, supported by tables or figures where appropriate to enhance clarity. The discussion should interpret these findings, identify gaps and limitations, and explore their implications for future research, policy, or clinical practice. A concise conclusion should reinforce the key insights and offer actionable recommendations. Finally, the references must be comprehensive and current, formatted consistently in Vancouver style unless otherwise specified by the journal.

2. Writing Style and Tone

To ensure scholarly clarity and coherence, scoping reviews should maintain an analytical and integrative tone throughout the manuscript. Authors are encouraged to synthesize findings rather than merely describe them, weaving diverse sources into a unified narrative that reflects critical engagement with the literature. Readability should be enhanced through the use of clear transitions, informative subheadings, and a logical flow that guides the reader seamlessly from one section to the next. Language must remain accessible; jargon should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, and any specialized terminology introduced should be clearly defined to support comprehension across disciplines. It is also essential to distinguish transparently between evidence-based claims—grounded in empirical data or established frameworks—and the author’s own interpretations or reflections, which should be explicitly signposted. This approach fosters both intellectual rigor and reader trust, ensuring that the review contributes meaningfully to academic discourse.

3. Content and Source Use

To ensure scholarly depth and inclusivity, scoping reviews should draw upon a balanced mix of peer-reviewed literature, expert commentary, and foundational works that have shaped the field. Rather than compiling exhaustive lists of studies, authors are encouraged to focus on synthesis and interpretation—highlighting patterns, tensions, and conceptual developments across the literature. This approach fosters a more meaningful and accessible narrative, allowing readers to grasp the broader landscape of inquiry. It is equally important to represent diverse perspectives and sources with respect and intellectual openness, acknowledging contributions across disciplines, regions, and methodological traditions. Promotional content and unsupported claims must be strictly avoided; all assertions should be grounded in credible evidence and presented with academic integrity.

4. Submission Specifications

Scoping review submissions to JIDA should adhere to specific formatting and ethical standards to ensure consistency and academic integrity. Manuscripts typically range from 4,000 to 7,000 words, excluding references and any supplementary materials. Authors must submit their work as a Word document (.doc or .docx), which facilitates compatibility with editorial and peer review systems. While figures and tables are optional, their inclusion is strongly encouraged when they help clarify complex data, illustrate conceptual frameworks, or enhance the overall presentation of findings. Authors may also provide supplementary materials such as detailed search strategies, data extraction forms, conceptual frameworks, or annotated bibliographies to enrich the submission and support transparency. Importantly, all manuscripts must be original, properly cited, and free from plagiarism, reflecting the highest standards of scholarly conduct.

5. Review and Editorial Process

All scoping review submissions to JIDA are subject to a rigorous editorial and peer review process designed to uphold the journal’s academic standards and ensure relevance to its scope. During this process, authors may be invited to revise their manuscripts to enhance clarity, analytical depth, or alignment with the journal’s thematic focus. Feedback provided by reviewers and editors is constructive and aimed at supporting iterative improvement, helping authors refine their work while preserving its originality and scholarly contribution. This collaborative approach fosters transparency, academic rigor, and continuous enhancement of published content.

6. Ethical and Scholarly Standards

Scoping review submissions to JIDA must reflect the highest standards of ethical scholarship and professional responsibility. Authors are required to clearly disclose any conflicts of interest, whether financial, institutional, or personal, to maintain transparency and trust in the review process. Manuscripts should demonstrate a respectful and inclusive representation of gender, ethnicity, and disciplinary diversity, acknowledging the contributions of varied voices and perspectives across the literature. Academic integrity must be upheld at all stages of writing and submission, with all sources accurately cited and findings reported transparently, ensuring that the review serves as a credible and constructive resource for the dental research community.