Guidelines for Reviewers
Peer review is an essential part in the publication process, ensuring that JSPIR maintains high quality standards for its published papers.
Requirements for Reviewers:
The interested reviewer must have a valid degree in Dentistry, Medicine or in research related areas such as Biostatistics. Also, must be academically affiliated with a university, hospital, institution or must be a clinical expert.
The reviewer is invited by email to review a manuscript which includes the delivery date (2 or 3 weeks forward), as well as other important instructions.
As the reviewer receive the invitation, he/her should respond as soon as possible, whether accept or decline the invitation, based on:
If the reviewer it’s unable to complete his/her review within the allotted time due to unforeseen circumstances, the editor must be contacted immediately.
The scientific review must follow these parameters:
Review Report:
Review reports should contain:
The final decision
Ultimately, it’s the editor’s decision whether to accept or reject the manuscript and further communication to the authors through the Double-Blind Editors.
Requirements for Reviewers:
The interested reviewer must have a valid degree in Dentistry, Medicine or in research related areas such as Biostatistics. Also, must be academically affiliated with a university, hospital, institution or must be a clinical expert.
The reviewer is invited by email to review a manuscript which includes the delivery date (2 or 3 weeks forward), as well as other important instructions.
As the reviewer receive the invitation, he/her should respond as soon as possible, whether accept or decline the invitation, based on:
- Interest conflicts
- Area of expertise
- Deadline date
If the reviewer it’s unable to complete his/her review within the allotted time due to unforeseen circumstances, the editor must be contacted immediately.
The scientific review must follow these parameters:
- All considerations from the reviewer must be indicated in a numbered text format.
- The page and paragraph to which the comments relate should be identified.
- The reviewer should start by recognizing and commenting on the strengths and weaknesses of the study design and methodology.
- Analyse the data extensively, comment on the author’s data interpretation and identify limitations or possible failures.
- Ethical concerns raised by the study must be recognized, as well as inappropriate scientific conduct.
- Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, which should be appealing and easy to read, regardless of its design, methodology, results and interpretation of the study.
- The reviewer should provide the author with suggestions for improving his manuscript.
- Comments must be constructive and professional.
- The reviewer should dedicate a paragraph to the editor to contextualize his decision to:
- Accept, without revision
- Reject, without revision
- Revise, either major or minor
- Reviewer’s final decision and commentaries should be returned to the editor by email.
Review Report:
Review reports should contain:
- Brief summary (one short paragraph) highlighting the aim of the manuscript and its main contributions.
- General comments about the areas of strength and weakness. These comments should be specific enough for authors to be able to respond.
- Specific comments referring to line numbers, tables or figures. Reviewers need not comment on formatting issues.
The final decision
Ultimately, it’s the editor’s decision whether to accept or reject the manuscript and further communication to the authors through the Double-Blind Editors.