Review Policy

Dentika: Dental Journal (DENTIKA) uses Double Blind Review. The article sent by the writer will be reviewed by the editor previously. The article will be reviewed whether it is within our focus and scope, or has any major methodological weaknesses. All submitted texts that pass this stage will be examined using Turnitin to identify plagiarism before being reviewed by the reviewer. An assessment of AI usage will also be conducted, with a maximum allowable percentage of 20%.

The article will then be sent anonymously to reviewers (minimum 2 Reviewers), Reviewers' comments are also sent to the author to take any necessary actions and responses. The revised manuscript will be decided and later evaluated in the editorial board meeting. the final decision will be sent to the associated writer afterward. An article is reviewed based on this assessment whether or not it is suitable for publication.

The scope of peer review involves the independent, critical evaluation of a scientific manuscript prior to publication. Its primary objective is to ensure that the published research meets standards regarding methodological quality, originality, ethics, and the clarity of scientific communication.

Broadly speaking, the scope of a peer reviewer's work encompasses six key areas:

Evaluation of Novelty and Scientific Contribution

Scope Alignment: Ensuring the research topic is relevant to the focus and target audience of the intended journal.
Scientific Added Value: Assessing whether the research offers new insights, confirms existing theories through a novel approach, or resolves significant practical or theoretical problems.
Originality: Ensuring there are no indications of redundant publication, plagiarism, or the misappropriation of ideas from other works.

Assessment of Methodology and Research Design (Methodological Rigor)

Design Suitability: Assessing whether the study design (experimental, observational, qualitative, etc.) is appropriate for addressing the research question or hypothesis.
Replicability: Ensuring that the descriptions of tools, materials, populations/samples, and experimental procedures are detailed enough to allow other researchers to replicate the study.
Data Analysis & Statistics:
Checking the appropriateness of the statistical tests employed.
Ensuring the sample size and the scope of analysis are sufficient to support the conclusions.

Reliability and Integrity of Results (Results & Data Integrity)

Data Consistency: Ensuring that the data presented in the text, tables, and figures are mutually consistent and free from contradictions.
Validity of Findings: Assessing whether the results are genuinely derived from the described methodology, rather than stemming from bias or data manipulation.
Adherence to Reporting Guidelines: Checking whether the manuscript follows field-specific international standards (e.g., CONSORT for clinical trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews, or ARRIVE for animal research).

Analysis of Discussion and Conclusion

Objective Interpretation: Ensuring the authors do not make exaggerated claims (overstatements) that go beyond their actual data.
Contextualization within Literature: Assessing whether the authors objectively compare their findings with relevant prior studies.
Acknowledgment of Limitations: Ensuring the authors honestly state the weaknesses or limitations of their research.
Valid Conclusions: Checking whether the conclusions logically address the study's initial objectives.

Research Ethics and Reporting Standards

Ethical Approval: Verifying the existence of authorization from a Research Ethics Committee (e.g., IRB/Ethical Clearance) for studies involving humans or animals
Informed Consent: Ensuring that consent for procedures or participation has been obtained from research subjects and that identity confidentiality is maintained.
Conflicts of Interest & Funding: Checking for declarations regarding potential conflicts of interest and sources of research funding.

Presentation Quality and Language

Manuscript Structure: Ensuring a coherent flow that follows standard scientific formats (such as IMRaD: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion).
Language Clarity: Assessing sentence clarity, the accuracy of technical terms/terminology, and grammatical correctness.
Citations and References: Checking whether the cited literature is relevant, up-to-date, and correctly referenced. Key Deliverables for a Reviewer
At the end of the evaluation process, a peer reviewer must submit two items to the editor:

Review Report:

Major Comments: Critical notes regarding fundamental issues such as methodological flaws, erroneous statistical analysis, or conclusions unsupported by data.

Minor Comments: Notes regarding typos, the clarity of tables/graphs, or corrections to reference formatting.