Instructions for Reviewers
Endodontics and Restorative Dental Medicine has established instructions for reviewers to simplify the review process, make the work of reviewers easier and ensure compliance with high standards of double-blind peer review. Based on these instructions and requirements, the journal ensures a robust and fair review process for all submitted manuscripts, with the goal of high-quality published articles.
Endodontics and Restorative Dental Medicine greatly appreciates the time and effort that reviewers devote to manuscripts. Therefore, the Editorial Board makes every effort to facilitate their work procedurally and to formally express gratitude for the work done. To ensure efficiency, the Editorial Board and the handling Editor communicate with reviewers directly via email and are available to them at any time.
The handling Editor looks for experts in the field of the submitted manuscript and seeks their acceptance to review. A minimum criterion to conduct a review is to gather two or more independent experts in the field of the submitted manuscript. For interdisciplinary research, the handling Editor will ensure the necessary number of reviewers to cover all aspects of the research.
The journal welcomes open requests from reviewers. If the journal receives a manuscript in a reviewer’s field and there is no conflict of interest, that reviewer will be entrusted with the review.
Reviewers are required to follow these instructions, read the Reviewer Conduct Policy to behave accordingly and apply the highest ethical and scientific standards when evaluating manuscripts, and read Writing and Formatting requirements listed in the Instructions for Authors to evaluate the manuscript in detail. All of the above and additional requirements are listed in the review form that reviewers receive upon acceptance of the manuscript for review.
- Assessing whether the title is appropriate to the content, whether the abstract is relevant and brief, whether the keywords reflect the essence of the manuscript, whether manuscript has the IMRaD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion), whether the introduction provides sufficient background and includes all relevant references, whether the research design is appropriate, whether the aim of the manuscript is clearly stated, whether the methodology is clearly defined, whether the results are clearly presented, whether the conclusions are supported by the results, and whether the references are up-to-date and relevant to the content.
- The manuscript should be either research or a review type. A research type should present the results of original research that are scientifically significant and can be replicated following the methodology used. A review type should provide a comprehensive overview of a problem or a research area. It should be based on the published literature, but contain original analyses and perspectives for future research.
- Providing an objective review within the given timeframe.
- The right to return the manuscript to the authors (with clearly stated objective reasons) for revision as many times as necessary to meet the highest scientific standards.
- The right to accept the manuscript in the present form, accept the manuscript after minor revision, reconsider the manuscript after major revision or reject it.
- The right to make additional comments and suggestions for authors and handling Editor.
- The right to anonymity.
- Reviewers retain the copyright to their reviews, but are required not to disclose them before publication of the reviewed manuscript.
- The right to a certificate of the completed review.
Reviewers are free to contact the Managing Editor at managing.editor.erdm@sqripta.com for any reason involving the review and are required to notify him of any ethical issues, inappropriate conduct, copyright disputes, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, figure or data fabrication, duplicate submission, etc.