•  
  •  
 

International Arab Journal of Dentistry

Instructions for Reviewers

The International Arab Journal of Dentistry (IAJD) uses double-blind peer review. Reviewers support editorial decisions by providing independent, evidence-based, constructive, and confidential assessments. These instructions summarize the review process. Reviewers should also consult the Editorial Policies page for the full Peer Review Policy, confidentiality rules, Conflicts of Interest requirements, research-ethics standards, and AI policy.

Before Accepting a Review

Expertise and Availability

Accept an invitation only when the manuscript is within your expertise and you can complete a careful review by the deadline stated in the invitation. Decline promptly when you do not have the required expertise or time.

Conflicts of Interest

Disclose any personal, professional, academic, institutional, or financial relationship that could affect, or appear to affect, your objectivity. Decline the assignment when a conflict prevents an impartial review. If uncertain, contact the Editor before accessing or evaluating the manuscript.

Confidentiality

Treat the manuscript, supplementary files, correspondence, and review as confidential. Do not share or discuss them, use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage, or retain materials beyond what is needed to complete the assignment.

Do not involve a colleague, trainee, or co-reviewer without prior approval from the Editorial Office. An approved co-reviewer must be identified and must follow the same confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest requirements.

Double-Blind Review

The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another. If the manuscript contains author names, affiliations, institution or laboratory names, file metadata, or other identifying information, notify the Editor. Continue only when you can remain impartial and the Editor confirms how to proceed. Do not try to identify the authors.

AI in Peer Review

Conduct the review independently and remain fully responsible for every assessment and recommendation. Do not upload, share, or process any part of the manuscript, supplementary files, or review through external generative AI or AI-assisted tools. Do not use such tools to analyze manuscript content or to generate, summarize, translate, or rewrite the review. Confidentiality and independent human judgment must be preserved throughout the review.

What to Assess

Scientific Contribution

  • • Fit with the journal’s Aims and Scope
  • • Originality, significance, and relevance to dentistry
  • • Clear research question, objective, or clinical message
  • • Conclusions that are supported by the reported evidence

Methods and Analysis

  • • Appropriate study design and reporting guideline
  • • Clear eligibility criteria, sampling, procedures, and outcomes
  • • Adequate sample-size rationale where relevant
  • • Appropriate statistical methods and transparent handling of missing data
  • • Enough detail to permit critical appraisal and reproducibility

Results, Discussion, and Presentation

  • • Results reported completely, clearly, and without avoidable duplication
  • • Tables and figures accurate, legible, relevant, and consistent with the text
  • • Discussion balanced against the literature and study limitations
  • • Language and organization sufficient for scientific evaluation
  • • References relevant, balanced, current where appropriate, and accurately cited

Research Ethics and Integrity

Check whether the manuscript reports the ethical review, consent, registration, data, image, and permission information appropriate to the study. Raise concerns confidentially with the Editor rather than making an allegation directly to the authors.

  • • Human research: approving body, approval number, compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, consent to participate, privacy protections, and consent for publication where identifiable material is included
  • • RCTs: prospective public registration and consistent registry details in the abstract and Methods. For manuscripts submitted on or after September 1, 2026, retrospective registration is not acceptable. For manuscripts submitted before September 1, 2026, any retrospective registration should be clearly disclosed and justified
  • • Animal research: approval, applicable standards, species and numbers, housing, procedures, anesthesia, analgesia, humane endpoints, and measures to minimize suffering
  • • Research integrity: possible plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, implausible or inconsistent data, inappropriate image manipulation, citation manipulation, authorship concerns, undisclosed Conflicts of Interest, or unauthorized third-party material

Article-Type Review Checklist

Original Articles, Including RCTs

  • • Title and abstract accurately identify the design and main findings
  • • Introduction establishes the knowledge gap and objective
  • • Methods are appropriate, ethical, and reproducible
  • • Statistical analysis matches the design, outcomes, and data structure
  • • Results include participant flow, sample characteristics, effect estimates, and uncertainty where relevant
  • • Discussion interprets rather than repeats the results and addresses strengths, limitations, and clinical implications
  • • RCTs follow CONSORT and report prospective registration. For manuscripts submitted on or after September 1, 2026, retrospective registration is not acceptable; for manuscripts submitted before September 1, 2026, any retrospective registration should be clearly disclosed and justified

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

  • • Review question, eligibility criteria, and protocol are clearly defined
  • • PRISMA is followed and a complete flow diagram is included
  • • Search sources and reproducible search strategies are reported
  • • Study selection and data extraction involve appropriate safeguards
  • • Risk-of-bias methods are suitable and used in interpreting the findings
  • • Synthesis methods, heterogeneity, sensitivity analyses, and publication bias are addressed where relevant
  • • Prospective protocol registration in PROSPERO or another suitable registry is encouraged

Case Reports and Case Series

  • • The case or series offers a clear clinical or educational contribution
  • • History, findings, diagnostic reasoning, intervention, outcome, and follow-up are adequately documented
  • Alternative diagnoses and treatment options are considered
  • • Images are necessary, accurate, anonymized, and appropriately described
  • • Written consent for publication is stated
  • • CARE or PROCESS is followed as appropriate

Review Articles

  • • The exceptional relevance and educational value are clear
  • • The scope and literature-selection approach are explained
  • • The manuscript critically analyzes rather than merely summarizes the literature
  • • Limitations, controversies, and implications are discussed

Letters to the Editor and Editorials

Letters to the Editor and invitation-only Editorials are exempt from external double-blind peer review. These manuscripts undergo an editorial review to assess their relevance, clarity, accuracy, evidence, professional tone, any ethical or legal concerns, and suitability for publication. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision and may request revisions or corrections from the authors before acceptance.

Write the Review

Comments to the Authors

Begin with a concise summary of the manuscript and its main contribution. Separate major issues from minor points, number comments, explain why each major change is needed, and cite page, section, table, or figure locations where possible. Keep the tone professional and focus on the work rather than the authors. Do not include your recommendation in comments visible to the authors.

Confidential Comments to the Editor

Use the confidential field for sensitive concerns involving ethics, integrity, conflicts, legal risk, suspected overlap, or reasons that should not initially be shared with the authors. The confidential comments should be consistent with the scientific assessment in the main review.

Recommendation

Select the recommendation that best matches the review and explain the reasoning in your report:

  • • Accept
  • • Minor revisions
  • • Major revisions
  • • Reject

The recommendation is advisory. The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor makes the final decision after considering the reviewer reports, the authors’ responses, and the journal’s editorial standards.

Submit the Review Online

Editorial Manager Reviewer Tutorial

For step-by-step instructions on accepting an invitation, opening assigned files, completing the review form, selecting a recommendation, attaching files, and submitting the report, consult the EM Reviewer Tutorial.

Editorial Office

For questions about an invitation or assignment, contact [email protected].