Il Dentista Moderno is a monthly journal publishing original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of dentistry. The journal provides relevant information for researchers, scientists, students of dentistry and practitioners with the ultimate goal of promoting oral health. Il Dentista Moderno is a peer-reviewed journal and therefore it is important not only for the publisher, but also for the authors, the editors and the reviewers to adhere to recognized standards of ethical behavior.
According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, ICMJE, peer review is “an important extension of the scientific process”, and our policy conforms to the publication ethics and publication malpractice policies as outlined by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), where more resources are available for editors and researchers. COPE aims to define best practice in the ethics of scientific publishing, in particular through the publication of its Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Publishers. Besides COPE, other organizations set guidelines in the field of publishing and research ethics to which Il Dentista Moderno aligns its policy.
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) is a group of general medical journal editors who meet annually and fund their work on the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (URM) submitted to biomedical journals, a standard to which our editors are referred.
The Council of Science Editors CSE publishes the CSE’s White paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications, which promotes excellence in the communication of scientific information, it is a reference for the definitionof roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in publishing and identify research misconduct as well as guidelines for conduct.
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT): provides recommendations for randomized trials and helps in the critical appraisal and interpretation of reporting.
We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
We are committed to protect and enhance the peer review process, which is at the heart of the success of scientific publishing, therefore we assist editors and reviewers in all aspects of publishing ethics, especially in cases of (suspected) plagiarism. On this regard, we refer to COPE’s Code of Conduct.
The editorial process is managed by the editors, with the assistance of the publisher, who supports authors, editors and reviewers in the editorial process.
DUTIES OF EDITORS
Decision on the Publication of Articles
Editors decide which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published and may confer with reviewers and may be guided by the journal’s editorial board in making this decision, which is subjected to legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the journal’s guidelines.
Review of manuscripts
Each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editors to examine the originality of its contents and after passing this test, it is forwarded to two referees for single blind peer review; each reviewer will make a comment for the publication, request of modification or rejection of the manuscript. The editor will weigh all views and may call for a third opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a final decision of whether to accept or reject a manuscript.
Fair Play: manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit without regard to authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: the editor is bound to treat the manuscript received for reviewing as confidential, and must not use the information obtained for personal advantage.
Confidentiality: editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.
Timing of publication: editors should aim to ensure timely peer review and publication for manuscripts, especially when they may have important implications (for which priority publication is suggested). The timing of publication may also be influenced by editorial requirement (such as themed issues) that may prevent articles from being published in the order they were accepted.
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
The editors provide deadlines for the review and definitely appreciate being informed in a timely manner if the reviewer is able to complete the review or not. Should any reviewer feel that it is not possible to review a manuscript within the allotted time, they should tell the editors, so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer. There are no consequences for refusing to review a paper. If reviewers feel the review will take longer to complete than normal, they are expected to contact the editor to discuss the matter. The editor may ask to recommend an alternate reviewer, or may accept to wait a little longer.
Standards of objectivity: reviewers should make sure that the article they have been asked to review truly matches their expertise. Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author.
Fair play: manuscripts shall be evaluated only on their intellectual merit without regard to authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: reviewers should disclosure to the editors if they have conflicts of interest with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript to review. A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate a reviewer from reviewing an article, but full disclosure to the editors will allow them to make an informed decision. Therefore reviewers, when responding to the editor’s invitation for review, should specify, for example, if they work in the same department or institute as one of the authors; have worked on a paper previously with an author; have a professional or financial connection to the article.
Confidentiality: manuscript received for reviewing are confidential, and reviewers must not use the information obtained for personal advantage. Manuscripts must not be shown to, or discussed with, others except as authorized by the editor. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Requesting the opinion of a single colleague may be appropriate in some circumstances but reviewers should always let the editors know beforehand and whoever else is involved will also need to keep the review process confidential.
Reviewer identity is not shared with the author, so no names should appear in the text of the comment. It also implies that reviewers should not attempt to contact the author.
Acknowledgement of sources: reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. If this occurs, it should be highlighted to the editors’ attention.
Plagiarism: if you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.
Fraud: if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor.
Other ethical concerns: if reviewers suspect a violation of confidentiality or the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of animal or human subjects, they should notify it to the editors.
Once the evaluation of the article is completed, the reviewer’s next step is to write a report. Reviewers should express their views clearly and support their judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the comments. Reports should be constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including the reviewer’s name. Authors only see the comments made for that specific author; editors may edit them.
Reviewers are also requested to make a recommendation regarding the manuscript as follows:
- Reject (explain reason in report)
- Accept without revision
- Revise (either major or minor)
The final decision of whether to accept or reject a particular manuscript lies with the editor.
Here are reported some key points for manuscript commentary that reviewers can use as a checklist.
Originality: is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal’s standards? Are the interpretations and conclusions sound and justified by the evidence? Are the references relevant, adequate complete, and current?
Structure: authors are required to adhere to the journal’s guidelines. If the difference is remarkable, reviewers should note this, because if the paper is otherwise good, the editor may choose to ask the author to restructure the paper before publication.
Title: does it clearly describe the article?
Abstract: does it reflect the content of the article?
Introduction: it should summarize relevant research to provide context, describe the experiment, the hypothesis and the general experimental design or method. Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent?
Method: does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information to replicate the research? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
Statistical errors: reviewers can refer to the CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 guideline.
Results: they should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. Has the appropriate analysis been conducted? Are the statistics correct? Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
Conclusion/Discussion: is the content this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research?
Language: if an article is poorly written, reviewers do not need to correct the English, but should bring this to the attention of the editor.
DUTIES OF AUTHORS
Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results which could damage the trust in the journal, the professionalism of scientific authorship, and ultimately the entire scientific endeavour. Maintaining integrity of the research and its presentation can be achieved by following the rules of good scientific practice, which include the following.
- The manuscript has not been submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration.
- The manuscript has not been published previously (partly or in full), unless the new work concerns an expansion of previous work (please provide transparency on the re-use of material to avoid the so-called “self-plagiarism”).
- A single study is not split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions to journals.
- No data have been fabricated or manipulated (including images) to support conclusions.
- No data, text, or theories by others are presented as if they were the author’s own (“plagiarism”). Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given and quotation marks must be used for verbatim copying (permissions should be secured for material that is copyrighted).
- Consent to submit has been received explicitly from all co-authors, as well as from the responsible authorities, tacitly or explicitly, at the institute or organization where the work has been carried out.
- Authors whose names appear on the submission have contributed to the scientific work and therefore share collective responsibility and accountability for the results.
- Changes of authorship or in the order of authors are not accepted after acceptance of a manuscript and may be considered only after receipt of written approval from all authors and a convincing, detailed explanation about the change. Final acceptance of the change rests with the editors and may be refused.
- Upon request authors should be prepared to send relevant documentation or data in order to verify the validity of the results. This could be, for instance, in the form of raw data, samples, records. If there is a suspicion of misconduct, the journal will carry out an investigation following the COPE guidelines. After investigation the author will be contacted and given an opportunity to address the issue; in case misconduct is established, the editors may decide to reject and return the article to the author or to inform the author’s institution.
- Compliance with ethical standards
To ensure objectivity and transparency in research and to ensure that accepted principles of ethical and professional conduct have been followed, authors should include information regarding sources of funding, potential conflicts of interest, informed consent if the research involved human participants, and a statement on welfare of animals if the research involved animals. Authors can refer to the WHO guidelines on Ethics and Health.
Authors should include the following statements (if applicable) in the text of the manuscript in a separate section before the reference list:
- Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest,
- Research involving Human Participants and/or Animal,
- Informed consent.
The corresponding author can be requested during peer review to collect documentation of compliance with ethical standards.
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest: authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could have influence on the work.
The corresponding author collects the conflict of interest disclosure forms from all authors; when allowed, the corresponding author can sign the disclosure form on behalf of all authors.
Examples of potential conflicts of interests that are directly or indirectly related to the research may include but are not limited to the following:
- Research grants from funding agencies (please give the research funder and the grant number),
- Honoraria for speaking at symposia,
- Financial support for attending symposia,
- Financial support for educational programs,
- Employment or consultation,
- Support from a project sponsor,
- Position on advisory board or board of directors or other type of management relationships,
- Multiple affiliations,
- Financial relationships, for example equity ownership or investment interest,
- Intellectual property rights (e.g. patents, copyrights and royalties from such rights),
- Holdings of spouse and/or children that may have financial interest in the work.
Research involving human participants and/or animals: statement of Human Rights; whenever human participants are involved, authors should include (in the text before the references) a statement that the study has been approved by the appropriate research ethics committee and has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki, 1964 and its later amendments.
Statement on the welfare of animals: the welfare of animals used for research must be respected. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals have been followed, and that the studies have been approved by a research ethics committee at the institution where the studies were conducted (where such a committee exists).
Identifying details (names, dates of birth, identity numbers and other information) of the participants to studies should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and genetic profiles unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and it is important that all participants give their informed consent in writing prior to inclusion in the study. A statement should be included confirming that informed consent was obtained from all participants. In case the article includes identifying information about participants, then it must be stated that additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in the manuscript.