Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry is the official peer-reviewed scientific publication of the Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry. It is a continuously updated, international open access title that publishes scholarly articles written in English. Since 1967, our journal is dedicated to the unlimited circulation of high quality academic contributions relevant to the dental profession.

Authors are encouraged to submit their original work related to all disciplines of dentistry, with prime focus being on the clinical or experimental research studies. Case reports, either in form of single case or case series, are also welcome provided that they describe unusual presentation of a rare entity or a different treatment approach. Review articles will be considered if they deal with controversial topics and provide a clear synthesis of previously published data.

Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry has been accepted to PUBMED Central. Full texts of all articles published from 2015 onwards (Year:2015 Volume:49, Issue 1) will be freely available to read or download in both HTML and pdf formats.

Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry has been accepted to the Clarivate Analytics's Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). All articles, starting from the second issue of 2017 (Year:2017 Volume:51, Issue:2) onwards will be indexed and abstracted by ESCI.

 

Section Policies

Original Research Articles

Varsayılan Polikitika

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Reports

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Editorial

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

JOURNAL OF ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF DENTISTRY

EDITORIAL PROCESS

General information   

    Peer-review evaluation and publishing of articles submitted to JIUFD are managed electronically   through the online system via e-mail correspondence. Corresponding authors will be notified by e-mail upon receipt of a new manuscript and will have further information regarding the editorial process. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to communicate with the other participants of the study about  the submission of the manuscript, its content and authorship requirements.

Who makes the decisions ?  

    JIUFD Editorial Board oversees the manuscript evaluation process. The Editor-in-Chief  is the only person who can officially accept a paper.

Initial examination 

Editor-in-Chief and editorial assistants check the submission files to confirm the availability of  the required documents. Please note that the Manuscript Submission Form, Copyright Transfer Agreement Form and Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form must be included in the original submission. Corresponding authors of incomplete submissions will be notified via e-mail. Editorial process cannot proceed until all relevant documents are signed and submitted electronically.

 Careful manuscript preparation is the crucial part of peer-review process. Editorial assistants will evaluate the manuscript to ascertain conformity to the following standards: consistency to journal style, clear and concise writing, proper use of English grammar and spelling, technical quality, correct formatting of references and documentation of ethical conduct. All eligible manuscripts will also be scanned with anti-plagiarism software.

    Manuscripts that fail to conform to journal expectations in any of the above mentioned issues will be returned to authors without review. This is a frequent cause of delay in the publication of articles and may even result in immediate rejection. All issues regarding the outline of the manuscript should be resolved before further evaluation. Manuscripts which pass the initial examination are presented to the Editorial Board by the Editor-in-Chief.

Peer-review 

   JIUFD operates a double-blind peer review system. Identities of the Editorial Board members who perform the initial examination and those of the reviewers who evaluate the manuscript remain unknown to the authors. All manuscripts are treated as privileged information. Editorial Board members and reviewers are instructed to exclude themselves from reviewing any manuscripts that might involve a conflict of interest.

    Editorial Board requests the opinion of, at least, two independent expert reviewers. Those who accept the invitation are expected to provide written critical reviews of the submission within 21 days of receipt. If one of the reviewers gives a negative feedback while the other’s response is positive, Editor-in Chief or Editorial Board invites a third reviewer. Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board reserve the right to obtain reports from biostatistics experts of their choosing at any time during the process, who might also suggest corrections in the manuscript.

    21 day time limit will apply for the correction of the manuscript, at the end of which the  corresponding author must return a revised version of the documents. Changes should be highlighted in red in the revised manuscript to facilitate reading.  Authors should also provide  itemized, point-by-point responses to reviewers’ comments in a separate file. The manuscript will be automatically rejected if no answer has been received from the authors. If authors submit the revised paper after the time limit is reached, it will be treated as a new submission. Revised manuscripts will be re-evaluated by Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board and will be sent back to reviewers.

    Acceptance for publication requires at least, but not limited to, final positive responses from two reviewers. In light of their recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board members choose between the following options:

 “accept submission”, “revisions required”, “resubmit for review” or “decline submission”.

    “Accept submission” indicates that the manuscript can be published as is. If there are “revisions  required”, all major changes in the manuscript must be confirmed by the reviewer who had originally suggested the revisions. In some cases, editorial team may think that your manuscript deserves re-evaluation after substantial changes which cannot be completed within reasonable time limits. Therefore, the editor may encourage authors to re-submit their manuscript by selecting “resubmit for review”. Such conditions include, but not limited to, increasing the sample size, performing more statistical tests or correcting multiple errors that impede understanding. Re-submitted manuscripts will be treated as new submissions. On the other hand, if the “decline submission” decision has been reached, your manuscript has been found unsuitable for publication and you cannot submit the same manuscript to this journal.

  An e-mail notification that includes the formal letter of approval will be sent to the corresponding author. Rejection e-mail will include reviewers’ comments and suggestions. Accepted manuscripts will be forwarded to the publisher.

After acceptance 

  Production department transforms the manuscript files into an article and sends the galley proofs to the corresponding author via e-mail. All authors should carefully check the final PDF proof version of the article for minor punctuation or spelling errors, correct presentation and positioning of the tables, figures and their captions. Corrected page proofs should be returned via e-mail within 7 days of receipt. Major changes such as adding new paragraphs, changing the title or the name order of the authors and modifying visual elements will not be allowed at this stage.

Publication 

   Articles will normally appear in the order in which they were accepted as publication, however, Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board reserve the right to modify this schedule in the presence of critical scientific issues.

   To speed up the process, articles will be first published online, followed by the print version of the journal. Both versions will have identical page numbers. Therefore, no change can be made in the article in between the online and in print publication steps.

DOI number   

   Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number is a unique alphanumeric identifier assigned by a registration agency. Once it is assigned to an article, the DOI will never change, therefore, it is ideal for citing and linking electronic documents. Your article will be assigned a DOI number provided by the CrossRef registration agency, immediately after it is published online.

Changes to authorship   

This statement concerns the addition, deletion, or rearrangement of author names in the authorship of accepted manuscripts. Requests to add or remove an author or to rearrange the author names must be sent to the Editor-in-Chief from the corresponding author of the accepted manuscript. This document must include: the reason the name should be added or removed, or the author names rearranged and written confirmation (e-mail, fax, letter) from all authors that they agree on the addition, removal or rearrangement. In the case of addition or removal of authors, written confirmation from the author being added or removed must be included. Requests that are not sent by the corresponding author will be forwarded by the Editor-in-Chief to the corresponding author, who must follow the procedure as described above. Production of the accepted manuscript is suspended until authorship has been agreed. The name and the order of the authors cannot be changed once the article is published online or in print.

Data access and retention                        

   Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their investigations during the editorial process or after publication of the article. Such materials include, but not limited to, original submission files, unedited versions of the printed and/or digital radiographs, unedited versions of the printed and/or digital photographs, histologic slides, original outputs from clinical and/or experimental diagnostic and/or interventional devices, original data sheets of statistical software and technical data sheets of any substance used in the research project. Authors should retain such materials for a reasonable period of time after the publication of their paper.

Correction, Retraction & Removal                     

  A formal correction will be issued in the journal by the Editor-in-Chief,  if only a small portion of otherwise reliable article is flawed in a way that does not severely affect the findings reported in it (such as mistakes in the spelling of a drug, miscalculation of a formula, mismatch between images and their captions or incorrect author list). Online articles will not be corrected directly. An erratum (for publishing error) or a corrigendum (for author error) will be published in the next issue of the journal.

  Articles may be retracted by its authors or by the Editor-in-Chief under the advice of the scientific community. If authors are willing to retract an article before it is published (accepted or under review), requests must be sent to the Editor-in-Chief from the corresponding author of the manuscript. This document must include: the reason the article should be retracted and written confirmation (e-mail, fax, letter) from all authors that they agree on the retraction. Reasons for editorial retraction include, but not limited to, unreliable  publications as a result of misconduct or honest error, redundant publication, major plagiarism, copyright infringement and unethical research. A formal retraction announcement written by the Editor-in-Chief will be published in the print edition of the journal. For online articles, the PDF pages remain with a watermark on each page to notify it is retracted.

  In rare circumstances, an article can be completely removed from the online database. Such conditions include, but not limited to, defamation, infringement of legal rights, court orders and claims in the article that might pose serious health risks. Title and author names will remain in the web page while the text will be replaced by a notification indicating that the article has been removed for legal reasons.

 

Publication Frequency

Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry publishes three issues annually.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides open access to all of it content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Such access is associated with increased readership and increased citation of an author's work. For more information on this approach, see the Public Knowledge Project, which has designed this system to improve the scholarly and public quality of research, and which freely distributes the journal system as well as other software to support the open access publishing of scholarly resources.

JIUFD provides free access to and allows free download of its contents from the journal’s website (www.jiufd.com).Both anonymous or registered users can read and/or download articles for personal use. Unless otherwise indicated, the articles and journal content are licensed under Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)license(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Usersmustgive appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. Users may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the journa lendorses its use.The material cannot be used for commercial purposes. If the user remixes, transforms, or builds upon the material, he/she may not distribute the modified material. No warranties are given. The license may not give the user all of the permissions necessary for his/her intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how the material can be used.

 

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement for the Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry

 

This document is based upon the Committee on the Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines and Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK) from Elsevier Publishing Inc®. All parties involved in the publishing process (Editors, Reviewers, Authors and Publishers) are expected to agree on the following ethical principles.

 

Duties of Editor-in-Chief

Editor-in-Chief is responsible for making the final decision on the status of papers submitted to the journal and has full authority over the editorial content and the timing of publication. She/he is expected to cooperate in any legal investigation including, but not limited to, insult, defamation, copyright infringement, plagiarism regarding the content of the journal. Editorial decisions should not be affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. Editing and/or publishing decisions should not be determined by the policies of governments or other agencies outside of the journal itself. Any information regarding a properly submitted paper/manuscript/document is confidential and should not be shared with anyone other than the corresponding author(s), reviewer(s), potential reviewer(s), editorial board member(s), and the publisher(s). Materials and/or data included in the rejected documents or which are under review cannot be used for Editor-in-Chief’s or Editorial Board members’ own research. Editor-in-Chief should obtain necessary disclosure and conflict of interest statements from the author(s). Editors should avoid conflicts of interest. If she/he participates in a scientific debate within his/her journal, she/he should arrange for some other qualified person to take editorial responsibility. Editor-in-Chief should protect the integrity of the published records by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. An editor should take necessary measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a published paper, in conjunction with the publisher.
 

Duties of Reviewers

This journal use double blind independent peer-review system. Reviewers contribute to the editorial process by assisting authors to improve their work and by providing their opinion on the suitability of the papers for publication in a timely manner. Reviewers should promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief and excuse themselves from the process if they will not be able to complete the review by the time frame agreed upon or think that they are not qualified to provide suggestions. A manuscript sent for evaluation should be treated as a confidential document and its content should not be discussed with others. Reviewers should not seek the identity of the authors. Reviewers cannot use the information they gained by reviewing a manuscript for their own research purposes until it is published. Reviewers should provide their objective criticism based on scientifically and/or logically proven background. Personal comments are not appropriate. All comments and/or questions directed to the authors should be stated clearly and concisely. Reviewers should be alert for inadequate citation of previous work and similarity between the manuscript under consideration and published papers. In order to avoid any potential conflict of interest, reviewers should immediately contact the Editor-in-Chief and refuse to take part in the editorial process if the manuscript they agreed to examine is closely related to their ongoing research projects which can result in competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connection with the authors.

 

Duties of Authors

Authors are responsible for the accuracy of their research as well as its objective and comprehensible presentation. All necessary data, technical details and references should be included in the submission to ensure reproducibility. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are not acceptable. Raw data of the research should be kept available and easily accessible, as the authors may be asked to provide additional information during and after the editorial process. All submitted documents should present the result of an entirely original work done by author(s). If the author(s) has/have used the work and/or words of others, these should be properly cited and/or quoted. Manuscripts describing essentially the same research should not be submitted to more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and must be avoided at all times. Ethical approvals and/or written consents for research studies involving animal or human subjects should have been properly obtained before the experiments and necessary details such as the name of the organization which has granted the approval and project number should be mentioned in the manuscript. All authors should disclose their source of funding and/or financial support for their projects that might be perceived as potential conflict of interest. Authorship should be limited to person(s) who had significantly contributed to the conception, design, execution and interpretation of the project. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Other persons who are not qualified as authors but have had significant contribution should be acknowledged or listed. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure that all authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission. If an author discovers a significant error and inaccuracy in her/his published work and/or submitted manuscript, it is her/his responsibility to immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief and cooperate in the retraction or correction process of the paper.

 

Conflict of Interest Statement

Public trust in the scientific process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how transparently conflicts of interest are handled during the planning, implementation, writing, peer review, editing, and publication of scientific work. A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients’ welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain). Perceptions of conflict of interest are as important as actual conflicts of interest. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies,stock ownership or options, honoraria, patents,and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs. Agreements between authors and study sponsors that interfere with the authors’ access to all of a study’s data or that interfere with their ability to analyze and interpret the data and to prepare and publish manuscripts independently may represent conflicts of interest, and should be avoided.

-International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, updated December 2013.

 

Informed Consent Statement

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. Informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should disclose to these patients whether any potential identifiable material might be available via the Internet as well as in print after publication. Patient consent should be written and archived with the journal, the authors, or both, as dictated by local regulations or laws. Applicable laws vary from locale to locale, and journals should establish their own policies with legal guidance. Since a journal that archives the consent will be aware of patient identity, some journals may decide that patient confidentiality is better guarded by having the author archive the consent and instead providing the journal with a written statement that attests that they have received and archived written patient consent. Nonessential identifying details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are de-identified, authors should provide assurance, and editors should so note, that such changes do not distort scientific meaning.

-International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, updated December 2013.

 

Human and Animal Rights Statement

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 Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 and 2008. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki 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.

-International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals 2006, updated December 2013.

 

Indexing & abstracting & archiving information

EMERGING SOURCES CITATION INDEX (ESCI)

PUBMED Central

PROQUEST

EBSCOHOST

DIRECTORY OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS (DOAJ)

OPEN AIRE

CHEMICAL ABSTRACTS

GOOGLE SCHOLAR

TUBITAK ULAKBIM TÜRKİYE ATIF DİZİNİ

 

Author Fees

JIUFD  does not charge authors or authors’ institutions for submitting, processing or publication of articles. There is no fee for extra pages or color images. All articles, back to 1967, can be downloaded free-of-charge from the journal's website.

 

Complaint Policy

JIUFD Complaint Policy

JIUFD defines a complaint as the expression of unhappiness concerning a perceived failure during the submission, evaluation and publication processes. We welcome complaints as they provide an opportunity and a spur for improvement, and we aim to respond quickly, courteously, and constructively.This procedure applies to complaints about the policies, procedures, or actions of the JIUFD editorial staff. The procedure outlined below aims to be fair to those making complaints and those complained about. Except in exceptional circumstances, every attempt will be made to ensure that the identities remain confidential. However the circumstances giving rise to the complaint may be such that it may not be possible to maintain confidentiality the situation will be explained to the complainant.Please write your complaint with journal title, volume number, issue number, paper ID and title and page number.

Complaints may include, but not limited to, the following issues:

- Authorship complaints

- Plagiarism complaints

- Multiple, duplicate, concurrent publication/Simultaneous submission

- Research results misappropriation

- Allegations of research errors and fraud

- Research standards violations

- Undisclosed conflicts of interest

- Reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by reviewers

The best way to reach us is by email. Complaints should ideally be made to the person the complainant is already in contact with over the matter being complained about. If that is not appropriate please email dentistryeditor@istanbul.edu.tr

Whenever possible, complaints will be dealt with by the relevant member of the editorial staff. If that person cannot deal with the complaint he or she will refer it to the Editor-in Chief.

All complaints will be acknowledged within three working days. If possible a full response will be made within four weeks. If this is not possible an interim response will be given within four weeks. Further interim responses will be provided until the complaint is resolved. If the complainant is not happy with the resolution he or she can ask for the complaint to be escalated to the individual's manager or to the executive editor.

If the complainant remains unhappy, complaints should be escalated to the editor, whose decision is final. If a complainant remains unhappy after what the editor considers a definitive reply the complainant may complain to the journal owner.

 

Editorial Contact Information

Editorial Secretaries: Benek Sağlam & Pelin Onan

Address for correspondence: Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry Istanbul Universitesi Dis Hekimligi Fakultesi Dergi Yayin Kurulu odasi 34093 Capa/Fatih/Istanbul/Turkey Phone:+90212 414 20 20(30438 ext) Fax: +90 212 414 25 70

Please send all inquiries about the journal to dentistryeditor@istanbul.edu.tr or disdergi@istanbul.edu.tr

 

 

Copyright and Licensing

JIUFD provides free access to and allows free download of its contents from the journal’s website (www.jiufd.com). Both anonymous or registered users can read and/or download articles for personal use. Unless otherwise indicated, the articles and journal content are licensed under Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Users must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. Users may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the journal endorses its use. The material cannot be used for commercial purposes. If the user remixes, transforms, or builds upon the material, he/she may not distribute the modified material. No warranties are given. The license may not give the user all of the permissions necessary for his/her intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how the material can be used.

 

Process for Identification of and Dealing with Allegations of Research Misconduct

Publisher (Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry) and the Editor-in-Chief of the journal will take reasonable steps which include technological and personal knowledge available to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation and data falsification/fabrication among others.

The Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry follows COPE's guidelines (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines) in dealing with allegations.

 

Ownership and Management

Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry is published by the Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry. Appointed Dean of the Faculty is also the owner of the journal. As the Dean of the Faculty, he/she is also responsible for appointing the Editorial Board Members who actively manage the journal.

 

Access

The Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry provides free access to and allows free download of its contents from the journal’s website (www.jiufd.com). Both anonymous or registered users can read and/or download articles for personal use. No fees of any kind shall be charged by the journal for viewing and/or downloading articles.

 

Revenue Sources

The Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry is owned by the Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry. As any other journal published under the governing body of Istanbul University, this journal is printed by the outsource publishing company which is a contractor of the Istanbul University. This journal is strictly non-commercial and produces no revenue of any kind. There are no business models and/or revenue sources that support this journal.

 

Advertising

Advertising of any kind is not allowed in this journal.

 

Publishing Schedule

The journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry publishes three issues annually in January, April and October.

 

Archiving

The Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry is archived and its web site is hosted by TUBITAK TR-DIZIN which is a Turkish governmental organization.

 

Direct Marketing

No direct marketing activity is allowed, including solicitation of manuscripts that are conducted on behalf of the journal.

 

Open Access Statement

This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.

 

Plagiarism Policy

  • Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry (JIUFD) adheres to the authorship criteria defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (http://www.icmje.org/).
  • JIUFD assigns equal responsibility of originality of the manuscript to all authors whose names appear on the manuscript or article.
  • JIUFD requires a statement signed by all authors indicating that no part of the manuscript has been plagiarized.
  • JIUFD employs ithenticate® Plagiarism Detection Software to scan the manuscripts for possible signs of plagiarism, in addition to conventional methods such as database and hand searching.
  • JIUFD considers self-plagiarism as equally unethical as plagiarism in any other form. If material is to be used from the authors’ previous work, standard referencing guidelines must be followed.
  • Authors should expect their manuscript to be scanned before submitting for review. If a manuscript (either newly submitted for consideration, accepted or published) is found to be based on plagiarized material, author(s) of this manuscript will be contacted by the Editor-in-Chief via a formal letter or e-mail.  The corresponding author of the manuscript will be required to respond to this inquiry within 30 days of receiving the letter or e-mail from the editor. All publication processes will be held up until originality issues is resolved. Following corresponding author's explanation, the Editor-in-Chief may reach the Head of the Institution or to any other relevant authority at the author(s) institution by sending a formal letter or an e-mail. If the author(s) manages to provide an acceptable explanation, the Editor-in-Chief may recommend changes to be made in the manuscript and may resume the publication process. If the authors’ explanation are not satisfactory, if they fail to respond in a timely manner or if they do not respond at all, the Editor-in-Chief will convene a meeting with the members of Editorial Board to discuss further actions.
  • Depending upon the nature and extent of the plagiarism, the manuscript may be rejected before or during the evaluation process or, if it is already published on-line, may be marked and linked with a statement of misconduct as well as a reference to the plagiarized material. In addition, authors may be asked to write a formal letter of apology to the authors of the plagiarized article and they may be barred from submitting any further manuscripts to JIUFD.

 

Reviewer Guidelines

JIUFD Reviewer Guidelines

General Information

JIUFD adheres to the ethical policies set forth by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html#three), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)  (http://www.wame.org/about/
recommendations-on-publication-ethics-policie
), Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE)  (http://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf) and Council of Science Editors (http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-3-reviewer-roles-and-responsibilities/).This document is based on similar documents developed by these organizations.

Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are usually not part of the editorial staff. Because unbiased, independent, critical assessment is an intrinsic part of all scholarly work, including scientific research, peer review is an important extension of the scientific process. It is the responsibility of the journal to ensure that systems are in place for selection of appropriate reviewers. It is the responsibility of the editor to ensure that reviewers have access to all materials that may be relevant to the evaluation of the manuscript, including supplementary material for e-only publication, and to ensure that reviewer comments are properly assessed and interpreted in the context of their declared conflicts of interest. The editor of a journal is ultimately responsible for the selection of all its content and editorial decisions may be informed by issues unrelated to the quality of a manuscript, such as suitability for the journal. An editor can reject any article at any time before publication, including after acceptance if concerns arise about the integrity of the work.

The Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry (JIUFD) uses double blind independent peer-review system. Reviewers contribute to the editorial process by assisting authors to improve their work and by providing their opinion on the suitability of the papers for publication in a timely manner. Reviewers should promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief and excuse themselves from the process if they will not be able to complete the review by the time frame agreed upon or think that they are not qualified to provide suggestions. A manuscript sent for evaluation should be treated as a confidential document and its content should not be discussed with others. Reviewers should not seek the identity of the authors. Reviewers cannot use the information they gained by reviewing a manuscript for their own research purposes until it is published. Reviewers should provide their objective criticism based on scientifically and/or logically proven background. Personal comments are not appropriate. All comments and/or questions directed to the authors should be stated clearly and concisely. Reviewers should be alert for inadequate citation of previous work and similarity between the manuscript under consideration and published papers. In order to avoid any potential conflict of interest, reviewers should immediately contact the Editor-in-Chief and refuse to take part in the editorial process if the manuscript they agreed to examine is closely related to their ongoing research projects which can result in competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connection with the authors.

Reviewers’ Ethical Responsibilities

  • Reviewers should respond to the review invitation as soon as they can. Whether they agree to review or not, delayed replies will slow down the process considerably.
  • Reviewers should only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the expertise required to carry out a proper assessment.
  • Reviewers who agree to review a manuscript must complete their reviews within the specified time period.
  • Reviewers should provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
  • Reviewers should always remember that the manuscripts submitted to journals are privileged communications and authors may be harmed by premature disclosure of any or all of a manuscript’s details. Reviewers therefore should keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly confidential. They must not publicly discuss authors’ work before the manuscript is published.
  • Reviewers must not retain the manuscript for their personal use and should destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting their reviews.
  • Reviewers should declare their conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists.
  • Reviewers should not seek the identity of the authors. If they suspect the identity of the author(s) they should notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
  • Reviewers who have reviewed a manuscript before for another journal should inform the Editor before they complete the review. The Editor can then decide whether a re-review is appropriate.
  • Reviewers should not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
  • Reviewers should be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments.
  • Reviewers should recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.
  • Before reviewing the manuscript, all reviewers should read above-mentioned electronic documents in order to understand their ethical responsibilities.

 

Reviewers’ Technical Responsibilities

  • Before reviewing a manuscript, reviewers must be sure that they have necessary expertise and time to complete the process. They must also be sure that they do not have any potential conflict of interest.
  • Upon accepting the invitation for review, reviewers should immediately contact with the journal if they are unable to open text files, figures or any other supplementary materials.
  • Reviewers should give their overall opinion and general observations of the manuscript. Their comments should be clear and concise, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including their names. A paragraph that summarizes the overall weaknesses and strengths of the manuscript, whether it contains novel information that can provide sufficient impact in their field of expertise would be very useful for the editorial process.
  • Reviewers should describe the manuscript type clearly in their report (Original research, case report or review).
  • Reviewers should check the title and make sure that it reflects the content.
  • Reviewers should check whether the manuscript conforms to journal standards with respect to length, format and writing style.
  • Reviewers should check whether the abstract section represents the content and conclusions of the manuscript. They should also check whether word limits and organization adhere to the journal standards (Word limits are; 250 words for original research articles, 150 words for case reports and review articles. Abstracts for original research articles should be structured under purpose, materials and methods, results, conclusion headings. Abstracts for case report and review articles should be unstructured).
  • Reviewers should check whether the keywords are appropriate and whether they conform to general standards.
  • Reviewers should examine the introduction section to check whether it includes necessary background information on the topic and specific, clearly identifiable questions to be addressed in the research. The research hypothesis should have been clearly described in this section.
  • Editorial Board of the JIUFD gives special importance to the repeatability of experimental research. Accordingly, in the materials and methods section, authors should be encouraged to provide detailed information on the experimental process and reviewers should feel free to ask about as much detail as possible. Reviewers must be sure that the information provided in the manuscript would enable other researchers to easily repeat the experiment.
  • Reviewers should check the results section to make sure that the findings are described clearly and in a logical order. Whenever possible, this order should match that of materials and methods section. Tables and figures are very important components of the manuscript and each should be self-explanatory with a caption. They should be well-designed and appropriately labeled. Data presented in the tables or figures should not be repeated in the main text. Reviewers should consider and comment on the number and quality of the visual elements.
  • Reviewers should check the scientific background and originality of the interpretation provided in the discussion and conclusion sections. All interpretations should be supported by the data. Reviewers should encourage the authors to discuss their findings and to provide logical explanations, also supported by the data, especially for the inconsistencies between their findings and that of other researchers. Following the same logical order as previous sections should be encouraged.
  • Reviewers should check whether the manuscript includes a clear statement of the ethical considerations concerning clinical or animal studies.
  • If reviewers suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns they should immediately contact with the editor and provide a detailed account of their claims.
  • Reviewers should check whether the scientific terminology used in the manuscript follows current standards in their field of expertise.
  • Reviewers should comment on whether the manuscript conforms to accepted rules of English grammar, punctuation, spelling and use of capitals. It is not the responsibility of the reviewer to correct such errors.
  • Reviewers are free to provide other suggestions which are not covered above to the authors. Requests of private communication with the Editor regarding the manuscript should be addressed to the Editorial Office at dentistryeditor@istanbul.edu.tr
  • Reviewer must provide a final recommendation on the manuscript's suitability for publication in its current form. “Accept submission” indicates that the manuscript can be published as is. If the reviewer’s final decision is “revisions required”, any major or minor changes in the manuscript must be confirmed by the reviewer who had originally suggested the revisions. if the “decline submission” decision has been reached, the manuscript has been found unsuitable for publication by the reviewer. The reason for any type of final recommendation, especially the “decline submission”, should be explained in detail.
  • Reviewers will be provided with standard electronic forms via e-mail. They will be asked to fill out these documents and send back to dentistryeditor@istanbul.edu.tr Reviewers may also send their additional comments in separate text files.
  • Upon finalizing the review process, a certificate will be awarded to the reviewer as a token of journal’s appreciation and as a formal proof of completing the process.



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.