Instructions for Reviewers
Quick Review Facts
- Review Model: Double-blind (Reviewers and authors remain strictly anonymous).
- Response to Invitation: Please accept or decline within 7 days.
- Review Deadline: Usually 14 to 21 days upon acceptance.
- Confidentiality: Manuscripts are privileged documents. Do not upload them to public AI tools.
Peer review plays a fundamental role in maintaining the integrity, quality, and credibility of scholarly research. Reviewers serve as essential gatekeepers for the Journal of Iranian Dental Association (JIDA), ensuring that research contributions meet the highest standards of rigor and ethical responsibility. These guidelines outline your ethical obligations and provide a structured approach to evaluating manuscripts.
1. Ethical Responsibilities & Professional Conduct
1.1. Accepting Review Requests & Timeliness
Accept an invitation only if you possess the requisite expertise to provide a thorough evaluation and can meet the prescribed deadline. If you are unable to fulfill these criteria, please decline promptly to allow the editorial team to seek alternative reviewers. If unforeseen circumstances arise after acceptance, notify the editorial office immediately.
1.2. Confidentiality and AI Use Restrictions
Confidentiality is a cornerstone of the JIDA peer-review process. You must not disclose, discuss, or share any details of the manuscript with anyone outside the editorial team. Furthermore, reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading the manuscript, figures, or any portion of the submission to public Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT), as this constitutes a severe breach of confidentiality and intellectual property.
1.3. Conflicts of Interest (COI)
Reviewers must evaluate submissions in a fair, unbiased, and objective manner. You must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest (e.g., recent collaborations within the last 3 years, shared institutional affiliations, financial interests, or personal relationships with the authors). If a severe conflict exists, decline the review invitation.
1.4. Providing Constructive Feedback
Comments should be well-reasoned, specific, and constructive. Avoid personal, disparaging, or biased remarks. Feedback should focus on substantive issues, methodological rigor, and clarity. Do not request authors to cite your own work unless it is absolutely essential for the scientific integrity of the manuscript.
2. Step-by-Step Manuscript Evaluation
A comprehensive review should ensure a rigorous assessment of the scholarly work. Please consider the following key elements when evaluating a submission:
Title, Abstract & Introduction
- Does the title accurately reflect the study?
- Does the abstract provide a clear, structured summary of the aims, methods, and main findings?
- Does the introduction effectively articulate the knowledge gap and justify the study's significance?
- Are the research aims and objectives explicitly stated at the end of the introduction?
- Are the cited references current, relevant, and balanced?
Materials and Methods
- Is the methodology detailed enough to allow for replication?
- Is the sampling framework adequate, and are appropriate controls in place?
- Have potential biases been identified and mitigated?
- Does the study adhere to established ethical standards (e.g., ethics committee approval, patient consent)?
- Did the authors follow the appropriate reporting guidelines (e.g., CONSORT, STROBE, CARE)?
Results and Discussion
- Are data explicitly described and appropriately contextualized?
- Are statistical analyses (including significance levels and confidence intervals) correctly applied and reported?
- Are the observed trends logically interpreted and substantiated by existing literature?
- Are the study’s limitations and gaps properly acknowledged by the authors?
Conclusion, Visuals & References
- Do the conclusions align with the stated aims and logically follow from the empirical evidence?
- Are tables and figures clear, properly labeled, and free from unexplained image manipulation?
- Are references formatted correctly (Vancouver style), avoiding excessive self-referencing and omitting contradictory studies?
3. Structuring Your Review Report
When submitting your review through the online system, please organize your feedback into two sections:
- Confidential Comments to the Editor: State your final recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject). Report any suspicions of plagiarism, image manipulation, ethical violations, or undisclosed conflicts of interest here. Do not mention your final recommendation in the author's section.
- Comments to the Authors: Provide a brief summary of the paper's main contribution. List your Major Concerns (issues that affect the validity of the study and must be addressed) followed by Minor Concerns (typographical errors, formatting issues, or minor clarifications). Be specific and reference page or line numbers where possible.
4. Final Recommendations
Your final recommendation to the editor should fall into one of the following categories:
- Accept: The manuscript is methodologically sound and requires no further modifications.
- Minor Revision: The core research is solid, but minor clarifications, rephrasing, or formatting corrections are needed.
- Major Revision: The manuscript has potential but requires significant re-analysis, methodological clarification, or extensive rewriting. (Note: You may be asked to re-review the revised version).
- Reject: The study contains fundamental methodological flaws, lacks originality, falls outside the journal's scope, or commits severe ethical violations.