PEER REVIEWERBe part of the manuscript quality control process at dentalmainframe.com.

 

INTRODUCTION TO THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS.

 

  • The peer review process is one of the most established methods to evaluate the quality of articles/manuscripts, maintain standards and provide credibility.
  • This process encourages authors to meet up the accepted standards of their specialties and prevents the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views.
  • At the same time the  Peer review process utilizes the independence, and anonymity, to obtain an unbiased evaluation of the article/manuscript.
  • At dentalmainframe.com ,peer review is not a mandatory but a voluntary validation process.
  • Authors who want their peers to review their work and suggest the areas of improvement and correct the flaws can apply for the peer review process. Those articles which have been peer reviewed and approved will be included under our peer reviewed segment.
  • At dentalmainframe.com we request our authors to self finance the peer review process by paying a nominal amount of USD towards the peer review so that the reviewer is compensated for his/her professional time spent on the review process.

 

 

 

NEED FOR REVIEW.

 

  • Peer review is a means to enhance the quality of published content and at the same time provide a fair and constructive feedback to authors
  • The best review process is not one that does a mere gatekeeping of set rules or guidelines but performing a more applicative role in terms of value addition to the subject and the content.
  • This can only be achieved by a robust ,constructive feedback mechanism which desires to be proactive in terms of quality enhancement.

 

 

 

 

GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEWERS

 

These guidelines are the steps or a organized checklist to help guide the reviewer. they need not be considered in absoluteness, individual discretion is also welcome provided there is value addition to the article and not much of deviation or personalization of reviews.

                                                                                                     
TITLE:Does the title mirror the subject content appropriately?

ABSTRACT:Does the abstract describe the content concisely?

OBJECTIVES:Are the objectives clearly stated?

STRUCTURE OF THE ARTICLE: Is the article well structured?

  • Are the arguments expressed clearly, strongly and convincingly?
  • Are there any irrelevant sections incorporated within the subject content?
  • Are there any relevant areas that should have been included?
  • Is the article well-supported with references and other authoritative sources?
  • Is the information,like facts,demographics etc based on well supported information or publications.
  • Is the information factually correct?
  • is the interpretation of the information, correct?
  • Are the conclusions supported by the discussion?
  • Do the supporting illustrations/graphs/other media well chosen , factual and relevant and add to the value and the impact of the article?
  • Does the article contribute significantly to knowledge and understanding of the subject. 

 

 

 

 

REVIEWER'S RESPONSIBILITIES:

 

TOWARDS AUTHORS

  • Take cognizance of the sites review guidelines and apply the same to the review process at the same time exercising personal discretion to validate.
  • Providing written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner 
  • Provide a value addition to the article by giving a constructive and corrective opinion.
  • Comment on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work, 
  • Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and ascertain whether it communicates the message to the reader.
  • Rating the articles composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to readers
  • Avoiding personal comments or criticism
  • Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process.
  • Avoid duplication or copying the text content for any any personal use elsewhere.
  • Identify strengths and provide constructive comments to help the author resolve weaknesses in the work

 

RESPONSIBILITY TO EDITORS

  • Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it; and recommending and commenting on the acceptance or rejection.
  • Providing a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work
  • Complying with the editor's written instructions on the articles expectations, scope, content, and quality of the submitted work.
  • Bringing to the notice of the editor any ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms, terms and conditions  ,or duplication or copyrighting of content.
  • Alerting the editor about any potential personal or professional conflict of interest .
  • Notifying the editor immediately regarding the unavailability for the review process.
  • Complying with the editor's written instructions on the journal's expectations for the scope, content, and quality of the submitted work
  • Providing a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work
  • Refraining from direct author contact without the editor's permission

 

The reviewer should sum up the review process with a personal note to the editor.. 

Advising whether the article is

Accepted...... as is
Accepted .....subject to minor revisions.(elaborate on the same)
Accepted...... subject to major revisions.(elaborate on the same)
Rejected ........from the review section but considered for inclusion in another section on the site

 

RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS READERS

  • Ensuring that the published article adheres to the ethics and standards.
  • Protecting readers from incorrect or flawed information and content from studies that cannot be validated by others.
  • Ensuring that the article cites all relevant work by other contributors if any.
  • Including all comments and feedback in the article (with the authors permission),to promote open discussion and debate, by other readers and also providing any feedback for the same.(this voluntary initiative is in line with our philosophy of open access)

 

 

 

REVIEWER IMPROPRIETY

 

 Reviewer Impropriety that needs to be avoided.

  • Unfairly criticizing a competitor's work.
  • Unreasonably delaying the review process.
  • Proposing changes that appear to merely support the reviewer's personal bias.
  • Misrepresenting facts in a review.
  • Making use of confidential information to achieve personal or professional gain.
  • Failing to disclose a conflict of interest that would have excluded the reviewer from the process.
  • Using ideas or text from a manuscript under review for personal use.

 

 

APPLICATION PROCESS

 

At dentalmainframe.com ,selection of peer reviewer"s is not open to all but its a by invitation only.