Editorial and Peer Review Processes


The peer review process is the major quality maintenance measure for any academic journal. In this process, experts in the relevant fields analyze any piece of scholarly work from various perspectives, including its writing, the accuracy of its technical content, its documentation, and its impact and significance to the discipline.

Reviewers play a pivotal role in the scholar publishing, and their valuable opinions certify the quality of the article under consideration. The peer review process helps to ratify research, establishing an evaluation standard within research communities.

THE EVALUATION PROCESS is performed as follows in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (http://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf).

Manuscripts are submitted via the online submission service (www.manuscriptmanager.com/stom).

Manuscript texts should be uploaded as PC-word files with tables and figures preferably embedded within the PC-word document.

Online submissions are automatically uploaded into the editorial office’s reviewer assignment schedule and are therefore processed immediately upon upload.

Each manuscript will be reviewed by the editors-in-chief and at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant for the scope of the article, in a double blinded fashion, according to the peer-review protocol.

The manuscript is evaluated to comply with the domain of the journal.

The same day, the manuscript is e-mailed to the reviewers (without the author’s names), together with the guidance for the authors and the evaluation guide, which contain the assessment record, as well as the due date for the review to be returned (usually, one week);

The invitation to participate in the manuscript evaluation is forwarded to the reviewers together with the manuscript; the reviewers are asked to confirm receipt and/or whether they are available to evaluate; if the respective reviewer is not available, the manuscript is forwarded to another reviewer.

After having received the manuscript from the reviewers, according to the observations which have been made, the manuscript will be:

  • published (no observations have been made);
  • retransmitted to the author to respond to the reviewers’ observations (when there are minor or moderate observations), and then published;
  • rejected if the reviewers’ observations are important (or if they recommend the rejection of the manuscript);

The reviewers must check whether the stages of the research presented in the respective manuscripts are in compliance with the world trends, the papers drafted by other authors, their novelty, methodology, the results obtained, etc. (according to the evaluation file);

The management of the Stomatology Edu Journal Editorial Board, involved in editing the journal, cannot interfere with the acceptance or rejection of any specific manuscript; its task is only to coordinate the manuscripts: to select, distribute to reviewers, respond, etc., but not to decide whether to publish a manuscript or not;

The decision to accept or reject a manuscript is based on the independent reviewers’ decision;

If the two reviewers’ decisions are conflicting, the manuscript will be sent to a third reviewer, and the final decision will be taken by considering the two most related decisions submitted by the three reviewers;

The publisher reserves the right to edit accepted manuscripts to fit the space available and to ensure conciseness, clarity, and stylistic consistency, subject to the author’s final approval.

Adobe-PDFdownload the Peer Review Guidelines COPE