General Guidelines for Reviewers
Invitation to Review
Manuscripts submitted to Clinical Dentistry and Research are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process by at least two independent experts. Reviewers may be selected from the journal’s reviewer pool or based on recommendations from the handling editor. Invited reviewers are requested to respond to review invitations promptly after assessing the manuscript title and abstract. Reviewers should accept an invitation only if the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and decline the invitation if it is outside their field. When declining, reviewers are encouraged to suggest alternative qualified reviewers, where appropriate. If additional time is required to provide a thorough and high-quality evaluation, reviewers should request a deadline extension in a timely manner. Timely communication with the Editorial Office is essential for maintaining an efficient review process.
Potential Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest that could bias their evaluation and should inform the Editorial Office if there is any uncertainty about whether a particular situation constitutes a conflict of interest. Potential conflicts include, but are not limited to, employment at the same institution as one or more of the authors; recent collaboration, co-authorship, or joint grant activity with any author within the past three years; close personal relationships, professional rivalry, or hostility toward any author; financial interests that could be affected by publication of the manuscript; and non-financial conflicts such as academic, ideological, political, religious, or commercial interests. Reviewers are expected to disclose any relationship or circumstance that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their objectivity. Reviewers are also encouraged to adhere to the ethical guidance provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Confidentiality
Clinical Dentistry and Research operates a double-blind peer-review system, and any manuscript received for review must be treated as a strictly confidential document. Until a manuscript is formally published, reviewers must not share, discuss, or use its content for personal or professional purposes, nor may they contact the authors directly without prior permission from the editor. Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors and must take care not to reveal their own identity, including through comments or file metadata in Word or PDF documents.
Unpublished materials, data, or ideas disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research. Any privileged information obtained through the peer-review process must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal advantage.
If a reviewer wishes to discuss the manuscript with a colleague or involve another individual in the review process, this must be done only with prior approval from the Editorial Office to ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that all participants meet the journal’s reviewer eligibility criteria.
Review Reports
Review reports must be written in clear and professional English and should aim to assist both the editors and the authors. Reviewers are expected to read the entire manuscript carefully, including any supplementary materials, figures, tables, and methods, and to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of the study. Comments should be specific, constructive, and actionable, clearly distinguishing between major and minor concerns. Throughout the review, reviewers should maintain a neutral, respectful, and professional tone.
Citation Ethics
Reviewers must not recommend excessive self-citations or suggest references with the primary intention of increasing citations of a particular author or journal. References should be suggested only when they are scientifically justified and clearly enhance the quality, relevance, or clarity of the manuscript.
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools
Reviewers are solely responsible for the content of their review reports.
Generative AI tools or large language models must not be used to analyze manuscripts or to generate scientific judgments. Uploading any part of an unpublished manuscript, including text, tables, figures, or data, to AI tools is strictly prohibited due to confidentiality concerns. Limited use of AI tools for language improvement, such as correcting grammar, spelling, or formatting, may be acceptable provided that such use is disclosed to the Editorial Office. Inappropriate or undisclosed use of AI tools may result in the review report being discarded.
Evaluation Standards and Reporting Guidelines
Reviewers are encouraged to assess whether manuscripts comply with internationally recognized reporting standards, when applicable, including:
Any concerns regarding incomplete or inappropriate implementation of these guidelines should be clearly stated in the review.
Recommendations
At the conclusion of the review, reviewers are asked to provide one of the following recommendations:
The recommendation should be fully supported by the written comments provided in the review report.