Journal of Advances in Oral Health

Guidelines for reviewers

How papers are reviewed, what we expect of reviewers, and the criteria on our review form.

Peer review

The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process, in which experts with a common area of interest, expertise and experience evaluate the work before publication. Reviewers are asked to give an honest appraisal of the research and to help bring out the potential of the researcher.

On submission, all papers are screened by the editors. Suitable papers are sent to at least two independent referees chosen by the Editor-in-Chief, who considers their reports and makes the final decision. Authors of papers considered unsuitable for JAOH are informed by email.

When a paper needs changes, the revised manuscript is checked by the Editor-in-Chief. If further changes are needed, it is returned to the authors with a letter or report explaining them.

A letter of acceptance is sent to the corresponding author, asking all authors to sign the contributor’s form and return it by email. Finally, a galley proof is sent to the corresponding author for corrections before the article is published.

ICMJE policy for reviewers

Manuscripts submitted to journals are privileged communications and the authors’ private, confidential property; authors may be harmed by premature disclosure of any part of a manuscript.

Reviewers must keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly confidential. They must not publicly discuss authors’ work or appropriate authors’ ideas before publication, must not retain manuscripts for personal use, and should destroy copies after submitting their reviews.

Reviewers who seek help from a trainee or colleague should acknowledge that person’s contribution in the comments submitted to the editor. Confidentiality may prohibit uploading a manuscript to software or AI tools where confidentiality cannot be assured — reviewers must ask the journal’s permission before using AI to help with a review, and should remember that AI can produce authoritative-sounding output that is incorrect, incomplete or biased.

Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to review requests and to submit reviews within the agreed time. Comments should be constructive, honest and polite. Reviewers should declare any relationships or activities that might bias their evaluation, and recuse themselves if a conflict exists.

Review form

Reviewers complete the following for each manuscript.

I. General information

Date
Article number
Article type
Article title
Reviewer name

II. Scientific criteria

Each criterion is rated: Poor · Needs improvement · Good · Excellent.

Criterion	Questions
Originality	Are the problems discussed in the article new?
Significance	Does the article make a considerable contribution to its area of research?
Relevance	Does the article present relevant information for its area of research?
Presentation	Does the article have a logical structure? Is the article grammatically correct? Does it use the terminology of its field appropriately?
Title	Does the title clearly express the content of the article?
Abstract	Does the abstract describe the research and the results?
Introduction	Does the introduction correctly highlight current concerns in the area? Does it specify the research objectives?
Methodology	Are the methods clearly explained? Are the data and statistics reliable?
Results	Are the results clearly presented? Do they sufficiently avoid misinterpretation?
Conclusions	Are the conclusions correctly and logically explained?
References	Do the references reflect the latest research in the area? Are they properly indexed and recorded in the bibliography?
Tables	Do they indicate measuring units and sources correctly? Are they correctly named and numbered? Are the data in the tables correctly valued and interpreted in the article?
Graphs and figures	Do they properly illustrate the subject discussed? Are they correctly named and numbered?
Plagiarism	Accepted / Rejected

The form ends with comments to the author.