Clinical Dentistry and Research operates a double-blind peer review system. A commitment to ethical professional behavior is expected from all Editorial Board Members. Reviewers must accept the Journal’s rules and policies and  should conduct reviews in an ethical manner. Clinical Dentistry and Research  follows the ethical guidelines of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) for peer reviewers. All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.

All submissions are first evaluated for suitability of publication by the Editor-in Chief and Associate Editor. If deemed appropriate, a member of the Editorial Board will be assigned as a Section Editor to evaluate the originality and quality of the submission. Manuscripts considered appropriate are sent to at least two expert reviewers for independent scientific assessment. If one reviewer gives negative feedback and the other responds positively, a third reviewer is invited.  If necessary, a statistical reviewer may also be invited at any time during the process. Clinical Dentistry and Research invites reviewers who have a specialist or doctorate degree in the relevant fields and have published numerous studies in international scientific journals. Reviewers are requested to return their reports within 20 days of accepting the invitation e-mail. After receiving the required reviews, the Section Editor provides a recommendation, and the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on the reviewers’ comments. Authors receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript. Authors are given 15 days for minor revisions and 30 days for major revisions to revise the article, and the corresponding author is responsible for uploading all revised documents to the online submission system until the end of this period. Changes in revised documents should be trackable for easier reading. Authors should also upload a response letter containing their point-by-point responses to all reviewers' comments. If no response is received from the authors, the article is automatically rejected. If authors submit a revised article after the deadline, it is considered a new submission. If the corresponding author provides a valid justification, the request for an extension of time for revision may be considered by the Editorial Board. Revised articles are re-evaluated by the Editorial Board and returned to the reviewers. Acceptance for publication requires a final positive response from at least two reviewers. Editorial decisions should be based on reviewer comments that demonstrate critical evaluation of the article, not on the recommendations of short and superficial reviewer reports that do not provide justification for the recommendation. A concern raised by a single reviewer or an Editorial Board member may lead to rejection of the manuscript.

To ensure fairness and transparency, Editorial Board members do not participate in decisions on manuscripts if they or their relatives are on the author list or if they have a conflict of interest. In such cases, the peer review process is managed independently of the involved member and their research group, following the journal’s standard procedures.