Peer Review Process | Art of Dentistry

Art of Dentistry is a scientific journal that uses an external peer-review process.

The purpose of peer review is to assess the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, clinical relevance, and compliance of submitted manuscripts with the journal's aims and scope.

Publication decisions are based on the scientific merit of the manuscript and the outcome of the peer-review process, independently of commercial, advertising, or financial interests.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Every submitted manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editorial Office.

At this stage, the following aspects are assessed in particular:

• compliance with the journal's aims and scope;

• completeness of the submission;

• compliance with the Instructions for Authors;

• basic requirements concerning the structure and scientific quality of the manuscript;

• authorship, funding, and conflict-of-interest information;

• research ethics requirements, where applicable;

• potential plagiarism or other forms of publication misconduct.

The Editorial Office may reject a manuscript at the initial assessment stage if it does not meet the basic formal, ethical, or scientific requirements or falls outside the journal's scope.

Initial acceptance for peer review does not imply acceptance for publication.

2. External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are sent to independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

When selecting reviewers, the Editorial Office considers:

• scientific and professional expertise;

• relevance of the reviewer's expertise to the manuscript;

• absence of conflicts of interest;

• independence from the authors.

Where possible, reviewers should not have a direct professional relationship with the authors or be affiliated with the same institution as the authors.

Membership of the Scientific Council or Editorial Office does not automatically imply participation in the review of every manuscript.

3. Peer-Review Model

The journal uses a double-anonymous peer-review model.

Under this model:

• the identity of the authors is not disclosed to the reviewers;

• the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors.

Authors are required to prepare manuscripts in a manner that enables anonymous review, in accordance with the Instructions for Authors.

Reviewer identities remain confidential.

4. Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript requiring scientific peer review is assessed by at least two independent reviewers.

Where justified, the Editorial Office may appoint an additional reviewer, particularly when:

• reviewer recommendations differ substantially;

• the manuscript requires additional specialist assessment;

• additional methodological, statistical, or clinical assessment is necessary.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts with regard to:

• originality and scientific value;

• relevance to dentistry and related sciences;

• clearly defined objectives;

• methodological soundness;

• appropriateness of the methods used;

• accuracy of analysis and interpretation of results;

• consistency between the results and conclusions;

• quality and currency of the references;

• clarity of presentation;

• quality of tables, figures, and supplementary materials;

• compliance with research and publication ethics;

• accuracy of citations.

Review reports should be substantive, objective, constructive, and appropriately justified.

6. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflict of interest.

A reviewer should decline to review a manuscript if circumstances may affect impartiality, including:

• direct collaboration with an author;

• a close personal or professional relationship;

• joint publications or research projects that may affect impartiality;

• academic or professional competition;

• a financial interest related to the subject of the manuscript.

If a conflict of interest arises, the reviewer should inform the Editorial Office and decline the review.

7. Confidentiality of the Peer-Review Process

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• disclose the manuscript to third parties;

• use unpublished data or information contained in the manuscript for personal purposes;

• copy or distribute manuscript content;

• contact the authors regarding the manuscript without permission from the Editorial Office.

Reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of information obtained during the peer-review process.

8. Reviewer Reports

Reviewer reports should be:

• substantive;

• objective;

• constructive;

• properly justified;

• free from offensive, discriminatory, or personal comments.

Reviewers should identify the principal strengths and limitations of the manuscript and provide specific comments concerning required revisions.

Reviewers should not request unnecessary citation of their own publications.

9. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewer reports and its own assessment of the manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief makes the editorial decision.

Possible decisions include:

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication without substantial changes.

Minor Revision

The authors are requested to make specified changes that do not require another full peer review or can be verified by the Editorial Office.

Major Revision

The authors are required to make substantial revisions. Following revision, the manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further assessment.

Reject

The manuscript is not accepted for publication.

The editorial decision is based on the overall scientific assessment and evidence and is not determined solely by the recommendation of an individual reviewer.

10. Divergent Reviewer Recommendations

If reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Editorial Office may:

• request additional clarification from the reviewers;

• send the manuscript to an additional independent reviewer;

• make an editorial decision based on the available reports and its own scientific assessment.

The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

11. Author Response to Reviewer Comments

Authors asked to revise a manuscript should provide:

• a revised version of the manuscript;

• a response to the reviewers' comments;

• an indication of the changes made to the manuscript;

• a scientific justification where a particular reviewer comment has not been accepted.

The authors' response should be substantive and address all relevant reviewer comments.

12. Re-Review

Where substantial revisions have been made, the revised manuscript may be sent for further assessment by the same reviewers or by other independent reviewers.

The decision to conduct further peer review rests with the Editorial Office.

13. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe that the decision resulted from a significant procedural error, a material misunderstanding of the manuscript, or other justified circumstances.

An appeal should:

• be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office;

• identify the manuscript;

• identify the decision being appealed;

• provide specific and substantive reasons.

The appeal is considered by the Editorial Office.

Where justified, the Editorial Office may seek an additional independent opinion.

The decision following an appeal may be final.

14. Withdrawal of a Manuscript by Authors

Authors may request withdrawal of a manuscript before publication.

A withdrawal request should be submitted in writing by the corresponding author and should include the reason for withdrawal.

After publication, correction, withdrawal, or retraction of an article is handled in accordance with the journal's policies on corrections and retractions.

15. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Members of the Scientific Council

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editorial Office, or members of the Scientific Council are subject to the same peer-review standards as other manuscripts.

An individual who is an author or co-author of a manuscript does not participate in the editorial decision concerning that manuscript.

In such cases, the Editorial Office ensures an independent decision-making process and the appropriate selection of independent reviewers.

16. Special Issues and Thematic Materials

If the journal publishes special issues, conference materials, or other thematic publications containing scientific articles, these articles are subject to the same basic standards of scientific quality control and peer review as articles published in regular issues.

A guest editor does not replace the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief for the final publication decision.

17. Materials Not Subject to Full Scientific Peer Review

Not all types of content published by the journal require full external scientific peer review.

Editorials, publishing information, announcements, letters to the Editor, promotional materials, and other non-research content may undergo editorial assessment appropriate to their nature.

Scientific materials requiring peer review are processed according to the procedure described on this page.

18. Editorial Independence

Decisions concerning acceptance, rejection, or publication are based on the scientific value of the manuscript, its compliance with the journal's scope, methodological quality, and the results of the peer-review process.

Commercial, advertising, financial, or other interests of the publisher must not determine the outcome of peer review or publication decisions.

19. Integrity of the Peer-Review Process

The Editorial Office takes measures to ensure the integrity, impartiality, confidentiality, and transparency of the peer-review process.

If plagiarism, citation manipulation, fabrication or falsification of data, research misconduct, or other breaches of publication ethics are suspected, the Editorial Office takes appropriate action in accordance with applicable publication-ethics standards and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

20. Publication Process Dates

For scientific articles, the following dates are provided on the article page:

• Received – date the manuscript was received;

• Accepted – date the manuscript was accepted;

• Published – date the article was published.

These dates provide transparency concerning the publication process.

21. Publication Process Time

The initial editorial assessment normally takes approximately 10 days.

The average manuscript processing time is approximately 30 days.

The actual processing time may vary depending on the subject of the manuscript, the availability of suitable reviewers, the need for revisions, and additional editorial or methodological assessment.

22. Responsibility for the Peer-Review Process

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the proper organisation of the peer-review process and for final publication decisions.

The process is conducted in accordance with the journal's editorial policy, principles of editorial independence, scientific integrity, and publication ethics.

Ethical Standards

Art of Dentistry follows principles of transparency and good publication practice and draws on recommendations from organisations concerned with publication ethics, in particular the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The journal's peer-review policy is publicly available on the journal website.

Last updated: 2026