Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY encourages submissions from all authors throughout the world. Manuscripts are judged by two experts solely on the basis of their contribution of original data and ideas and their presentation. All manuscripts must comply with Instruction to Authors. The following articles will be considered for publication: editorials, original articles, reviewers, brief communications, case reports, and letters to the editor. Submitted manuscripts must not have been published, accepted for publication or be under consideration elsewhere. Investigation on human subjects should conform to the guidelines noted in the World Health Organization Chronicle 1976; 30: 360-362.

 

Section Policies

Original Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Case Report

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Editorial

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

All articles will be critically reviewed by the editor and invited referees within 2 months.

All manuscripts submitted to EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY are peer-reviewed according to the following procedure:

Initial review: The Editor-in-Chief evaluates all manuscripts to determine if a manuscript is appropriate for consideration by EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY. Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum criteria are returned to the authors within one week of receipt. This is in the best interest of the authors who could then decide to fix the problems or to submit the manuscript to a more appropriate venue, avoiding delay caused by a lengthy review process that would nonetheless lead to rejection.

Peer review: Manuscripts passing the initial review are assigned to an Associate Editor, who selects several referees based on their expertise in the particular field. A manuscript is reviewed by at least two referees under a double-blind peer review process, where both the referees and the authors are kept anonymous. Referees are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, soundness of methodology, impact to design research, and relevance to design practices. To facilitate timely publication, referees are asked to complete their reviews within one month. After collecting the referees' reports, the Associate Editor makes a recommendation on the acceptability of the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief.

Recommendation: Based on the referees' comments and the Associate Editor's recommendation, the Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision on the acceptability of the manuscript, and communicates to the authors the decision, along with referees' reports. The final decision can be ";;accept as is";;, ";;minor revision";;, ";;major revision";;, or ";;reject";;. A revised manuscript should be re-submitted within six months of the decision. It will usually be returned to the original referees for evaluation.

Review Guidelines

Double-blind Review
The journal employs the double-blind peer review process, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Criteria for Publication
For a manuscript to be published in EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, it must meet four criteria:

  1. Originality
  2. Soundness of methodology
  3. Importance to design researchers
  4. Relevance to design practices

Recommendation
Several types of recommendation are possible:

  1. accept as is
  2. minor revision
  3. major revision
  4. reject

Timely Review
Publication of manuscripts in a timely fashion benefits both the authors and the design community at large, where few journals are available to serve as common platforms for sharing research results. Reviewers are therefore kindly asked to complete their reviews within thre weeks. If more time is needed, reviewers should contact the editor promptly.

Honest and Polite
After each round of the review, review reports will be sent to the author(s) and all reviewers of the manuscript under consideration. It is important for a reviewer to be honest but not offensive when providing comments. Review reports with opinions expressed in a kind and constructive way will persuade the authors of the merit of the review more effectively.

Writing the Review
The purpose of the review is to provide the editors with an expert’s opinions on the quality of the manuscript under consideration. A good review report should identify both the strengths and the weaknesses of the paper, and should also provide constructive and specific comments on how to improve the paper. If the reviewer believes that the paper is not suitable for publication in EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, the review report should provide brief but sufficient information that enables the author(s) to understand the reasons for the decision.

Suggested Format
The following format is suggested for preparing the report:

  1. Summary and Recommendation
    What is the purpose of the paper? Is the paper appropriate for publication in EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY? What are the main contributions of the paper? Are the contributions sufficiently significant? Are the methods or findings sufficiently novel? Are the results relevant to design practice? What are the major weaknesses of the paper? What is your recommendation for this paper and why? If the paper is unacceptable in its present form, does it show sufficient potential to ask the author(s) for resubmission?
  2. Detailed Comments on Methodology and Conclusions
    Is the method of approach valid? Is the execution correct? Does the paper provide adequate acknowledgement of prior research? Do the data support the conclusions? If not, what other data are needed? Does the paper offer enough details so that the research could be reproduced? Should the authors be asked to provide supplementary methods or data online?
    It will be very helpful to provide page numbers to the parts of the paper to which the comments apply.
  3. Detailed Comments on Readability
    Is the title appropriate? Is the abstract an accurate and useful summary of the paper? Is the paper clearly written? If not, how can it be improved? Can the paper be shortened? Are the tables and figures easy to understand? Does the paper contain typographical or grammatical errors?
    Again, it will be helpful to provide page numbers to the parts of the paper to which the comments apply.

Confidentiality
Reviewers should treat the contents of paper under review as strictly confidential information, not to be disclosed to others prior to publication. A reviewer should not use or share with others material from a manuscript he/she has reviewed. Nor should a reviewer distribute copies of a manuscript under review, unless it has been made public.

Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers are requested to inform the editor of any conflicts of interest in reviewing a manuscript. Such conflicts of interest can occur if the reviewer is asked to referee a paper written by a colleague of the same organization, former or current student, former advisor, or closely connected person. Another type of conflict occurs, for example, when the reviewer is a direct competitor of the author of the paper for a grant. If the conflict is severe, the reviewer should recuse himself/herself.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY

The EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY is the official quarterly publication of the Dental Investigations Society. EJD is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed dental journal publishing articles in the field of general dentistry.

 

Powered by OJS