Guidelines for Reviewers

Peer review is the cornerstone of the editorial process at the Journal of Advanced Periodontology & Implant Dentistry (JAPID). The journal relies on the expertise and critical evaluation of its reviewers to uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity and clinical relevance.

The following guidelines outline JAPID’s core policies, ethical expectations, and practical instructions for structuring your review. For a comprehensive overview of our editorial procedures, please refer to our Peer-review & plagiarism: policies and workflow page.

Ethical Responsibilities and Competing Interests

JAPID strictly adheres to the ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

• Confidentiality: Manuscripts are confidential documents. Please do not share, discuss, or use any part of the unpublished manuscript for your own research or personal gain.
• Competing Interests: If you have a recent collaboration, institutional affiliation, or financial relationship with any of the authors that might bias your evaluation, please decline the invitation or contact the Editorial Office immediately to declare the conflict of interest.
• Suspected Misconduct: While JAPID utilizes Crossref Similarity Check (iThenticate) to screen for plagiarism, reviewers remain a vital line of defense. If you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical violations (such as missing ethical approval or informed consent), please notify the Editor confidentially.

The Double-Blind Review Process

JAPID utilizes a strict double-blind peer-review process. The identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other.

• When drafting your comments, please ensure that you do not inadvertently include your name, institution, or easily identifiable self-citations in the text intended for the authors.

Evaluation Criteria

When evaluating a manuscript, we ask our reviewers to place special emphasis on the following critical elements:

• Importance of the Study: Does the research provide significant new information or valuable confirmation of existing knowledge?
• Study Design and Data Quality: Is the methodology sound, ethical, and appropriate for the research question? Is the data robust and accurately analyzed?
• Structure and Clarity: Are the introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections clearly written and logically organized?
• Adequate Discussion and Conclusion: Are the conclusions fully supported by the data presented, without overstatement?

How to Structure Your Review Form

When submitting your evaluation in the online system, please separate your feedback as follows:

A. "For Editor" (Confidential)

• Use this section to provide your final recommendation (e.g., Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, Reject).
• Do not include your recommendation for rejection or acceptance in the comments intended for the authors.
• You may also use this space to confidentially alert the editor to any ethical concerns or specific weaknesses in the manuscript that guided your decision.

B. "For Author and Editor"

• General Aspects: Start with a short summary of your overall thoughts on the paper and its contribution to the field.
• Major Comments: Provide specific feedback regarding the core scientific content, addressing the Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion & Conclusion separately.
• Minor Comments: List any specific corrections regarding clarity, formatting, tables/figures, or minor methodological clarifications.
• Note: JAPID provides professional language editing for accepted submissions; therefore, reviewers should focus primarily on scientific merit rather than extensive grammatical corrections.

Timelines and Workflow

To maintain an efficient editorial workflow for our authors, we ask reviewers to submit their evaluations as promptly as possible.

• Reviews should ideally be completed within two weeks of accepting the invitation.
• If you anticipate a delay or require an extension, please contact the Editorial Office so we can adjust our timelines accordingly.