Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are not solely based on counting votes or numerical ratings, nor does Journal of Research in Dental and Maxillofacial Sciences (JRDMS) necessarily follow the majority recommendation. Instead, JRDMS carefully evaluates the strength and validity of the arguments presented by each reviewer and the authors, and takes into account additional information that is not available to either party. Our primary responsibility is to our readers and the scientific community at large, and thus, when making editorial decisions, JRDMS weighs the scientific merit and relevance of each manuscript in the context of the many other submissions under consideration. Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action; however, they should recognize that other reviewers assessing the same manuscript may have different areas of technical expertise, perspectives, or opinions. Consequently, editors may need to make decisions based on conflicting recommendations. The most valuable peer-review reports are those that provide editors with clear, objective, and well-supported arguments to guide their decisions. In this regard, outlining the strengths and weaknesses of a manuscript, along with the arguments for and against its publication, is often more helpful than simply providing a direct recommendation to accept or reject it.

Double Blind Peer Review

JRDMS follows a double-blind peer review process in which neither the authors nor the reviewers are made aware of each other's identities. During the submission of manuscript, authors may be required to suggest preferred and non-preferred reviewers; however, the final selection of reviewers will rest with the editor(s). Additionally, JRDMS requests the reviewers refrain from disclosing their identities to the authors while the manuscript is under consideration unless authorized by the editors. If a reviewer discloses their identity to the authors without the editor(s)' knowledge or authorization, the authors are required to notify the editor(s) as soon as possible.

Peer Review Process

The peer-review process is the principal mechanism through which the scientific quality, academic rigor, originality, credibility, and integrity of scholarly publications are evaluated, maintained, and continuously improved. It plays a fundamental role in the preservation of standards of academic publishing by providing an independent and critical assessment of submitted manuscripts before they are considered for publication. Through a systematic evaluation by experts with relevant knowledge and experience in the subject area, the peer-review process helps identify the strengths and limitations of research, assess the reliability and significance of reported findings, and ensure that published articles make meaningful and scientifically sound contributions to their respective fields. Furthermore, peer review provides authors with constructive feedback and recommendations that can improve the clarity, methodological quality, presentation, and overall scientific value of their manuscripts.
To achieve such objectives, all manuscripts submitted to the JRDMS undergo a rigorous, fair, and impartial evaluation process. Each submission is initially assessed by the editorial team to determine whether it falls within the journal's aims and scope, and meets the basic requirements for scientific quality, relevance, originality, and appropriate presentation. Manuscripts that satisfy preliminary requirements are subsequently considered for peer review by independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant research area. Reviewers are expected to critically evaluate the scientific rationale, research design, methodological appropriateness, quality and adequacy of data, validity of the analyses, interpretation of the results, and whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the evidence presented. Moreover, they evaluate the clarity of the manuscript, the relevance and accuracy of the literature review, the appropriateness of references, and the extent to which the work advances existing knowledge. Particular attention is given to the ethical conduct of research, transparency in reporting, appropriate acknowledgment of previous work, and compliance with relevant research and publication ethics standards. JRDMS considers the peer-review process an essential component of quality assurance; however, the final decision regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript rests with the editorial team. Editorial decisions are based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations, together with the editors' independent assessment of the manuscript's scientific merit and suitability for publication. The recommendations provided by reviewers are carefully considered but are not necessarily binding, as the final responsibility for editorial decisions remains with the journal's editors. Where necessary, additional expert opinions may be sought to resolve conflicting recommendations or to obtain further clarification regarding specific scientific or methodological aspects of a submission.
The decision to accept a manuscript is not exclusively determined by its scientific validity, methodological soundness, or originality. Although these are fundamental and essential criteria, several additional considerations may influence the editorial decision. These include, but are not limited to:

1. Scientific originality and novelty: The extent to which the manuscript presents original research, introduces new concepts, develops innovative approaches, challenges existing assumptions, or provides new interpretations of previously established knowledge.

2. Level of innovation and advancement of knowledge: The degree to which the research offers innovative perspectives, methods, techniques, or findings that contribute to the development of the relevant scientific discipline or address existing knowledge gaps.

3. Significance and importance of the findings: The extent, relevance, and potential importance of the new information presented in the manuscript compared with existing literature and other manuscripts under consideration. Particular consideration is given to whether the findings provide substantial scientific insights, resolve important research questions, or have implications for future research, professional practice, or policy development.

4. Scientific rigor and methodological quality: The appropriateness of the research design, sampling procedures, data collection methods, analytical approaches, and interpretation of results. JRDMS places particular emphasis on the reliability, reproducibility, transparency, and scientific credibility of the research.

5. Relevance to the journal's readership: The extent to which the subject matter, findings, and implications of the manuscript are relevant and valuable to the journal's target audience; including researchers, academics, professionals, practitioners, and other interested stakeholders.

6. Alignment with the journal's aims and scope: The degree to which the manuscript addresses topics, research questions, and scientific areas that are consistent with the JRDMS's stated objectives, thematic priorities, and areas of interest.

7. Contribution to the diversity and balance of published content: JRDMS seeks to maintain a broad and balanced representation of research topics, disciplines, methodologies, geographical contexts, and emerging areas of investigation. The editorial team may consider the journal's existing and anticipated content when evaluating the suitability of a manuscript, with the aim of avoiding excessive concentration on particular topics while encouraging the publication of diverse and complementary areas of research.

8. Comparative contribution to the existing body of literature: The manuscript is evaluated in the context of relevant published research and other submissions under consideration, particularly regarding the extent to which it provides additional knowledge, advances current scientific understanding, or offers findings that are sufficiently distinct and significant to justify publication.

9. Clarity, organization, and quality of presentation: The manuscript should communicate its research objectives, methods, findings, and conclusions in a clear, coherent, logically structured, and academically appropriate manner. Although language and presentation issues may be addressed through revision, the overall quality of scientific communication is an important consideration.

10. Ethical standards and research integrity: The Journal considers compliance with recognized principles of research and publication ethics to be indispensable. This includes appropriate ethical approval where applicable, informed consent when required, transparency regarding conflicts of interest and funding sources, responsible data reporting, appropriate authorship practices, and the avoidance of plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, and other forms of research misconduct.

In addition to these criteria, the JRDMS recognizes that the quality and importance of a manuscript should be assessed in relation to its specific research context and the nature of the contribution it seeks to make. Different types of scholarly contributions, including original research articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, methodological studies, and brief communications, may require different evaluation approaches and criteria. Consequently, editorial assessments take into account the specific characteristics, objectives, and expected contributions of each manuscript rather than applying an inflexible or uniform standard to all types of submissions. JRDMS is committed to ensuring that editorial decisions are made objectively, consistently, transparently, and without inappropriate influence from personal, institutional, geographical, or other non-scientific considerations. Reviewers and editors are expected to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and to maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and all information obtained during the review process. Decisions should be based on the scientific and scholarly merits of the work, its relevance to the journal, and its potential contribution to the advancement of knowledge. It is also important to emphasize that a favorable peer-review recommendation does not automatically guarantee acceptance for publication. A manuscript may receive positive evaluations from reviewers but may, nevertheless, be declined if it does not sufficiently align with the journal's scope, lacks adequate priority in relation to other submissions, offers limited additional scientific value, or does not fit theJRDMS' overall editorial direction and publication priorities. Similarly, manuscripts requiring substantial improvements may be invited for major revision, with the understanding that resubmission does not guarantee eventual acceptance. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional experts to determine whether the concerns raised during the initial review have been adequately addressed.
Ultimately, the objective of JRDMS is not simply to increase the number of published articles but to maintain and continuously enhance the scientific quality, academic relevance, diversity, and overall impact of its published content. The combination of rigorous external peer review and independent editorial judgment enables JRDMS to select manuscripts that meet high standards of scientific integrity and scholarly excellence while providing meaningful, original, and valuable contributions to the advancement of research and knowledge. Through this approach, JRDMS seeks to maintain the confidence of authors, reviewers, readers, and the wider academic community and to strengthen its position as a reliable and respected platform for the dissemination of high-quality scientific research.
 

The peer review process is as below mention steps:

1. At first, the editor(s) acts as a first filter by evaluating each manuscript for novelty, interest for our readers, and chances to compete in peer review. Yet the process avoids futile cycles of review for manuscripts that are better suited for a more specialized journal, saving time for authors and reviewers. Modifications/corrections may be requested from the authors at this stage before starting the peer review.

2. In the second step, editors select typically two reviewers, experts in the topic. Often, we also include one expert for statistics or a particular technique. peer reviewers will make suggestions to the editor(s).

3. The authors can monitor the progress of the manuscript throughout the review process in his/her profile.

4. Submitted manuscripts will be rendered one of the following decisions:
   Accept Submission: The submission will be accepted without revisions.
   Revisions Required: The submission will be accepted after minor changes have been made.
   Resubmit for Review: The submission needs to be reworked, but with significant changes, may be accepted. It will require a second round of review, Decline Submission: The submission will not be published in the journal.

5. If the author(s) believe that the journal has rejected their article in error, perhaps because the reviewers have misunderstood its scientific content, an appeal may be submitted by e-mail to the editorial office (journal's email). However, appeals are ineffective in most cases and are discouraged.

Editing Referees' Reports

As a matter of policy, we do not suppress reviewers' reports; any comments intended for the authors are forwarded, regardless of our views on their content. On rare occasions, we may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that disclose confidential information regarding other issues. JRDMS ask reviewers to avoid remarks that may cause unnecessary offense. At the same time, JRDMS strongly encourages reviewers to express  their opinions on a manuscript clearly, candidly and directly.

Timing

JRDMS is committed to making rapid editorial decisions and ensuring timely publication, recognizing that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service to our authors and to the scientific community. Consequently, JRDMS asks reviewers to submit theri reviews within a maximum of two weeks. In case reviewers anticipate they need more time than expected, they are requested to promptly inform the editorial office so that JRDMS can keep the authors updated and, where necessary, make alternative arrangements.