Peer Review Policy

• The Bangladesh Journal of Dental Research & Education (BJDRE) ensures that all submitted manuscripts undergo a structured and rigorous peer review process to maintain high scientific quality, research integrity andethical publication standards. The journal follows internationally accepted publication ethics principles consistent with COPE, DOAJ and ICMJE recommendations.

• All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents and remain the intellectual property of the authors. Any information obtained during the peer review process must not be disclosed, discussed publicly, or used for personal advantage prior to publication.

Types of Peer Review Process

• BJDRE follows a double-blind peer review system, where:
  • The identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process
  • Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise

Peer Review Process

• Manuscript Submission
  Authors submit manuscripts through the journal submission system.

• Editorial Screening
  All submissions are initially evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief and editorial team for:
  • Completeness of submission
  • Compliance with journal scope and author guidelines
  • Plagiarism screening
  • Ethical compliance
  Manuscripts that do not meet basic journal requirements may be rejected without external review.
  Typical timeline: 7-14 days

• Reviewer Assignment
  Reviewers are selected based on:
  • Subject expertise
  • Academic and publication record
  • Previous review quality and reliability
  • Availability to complete review within timeline
  Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest before accepting review invitations.

• External Peer Review
  • Manuscripts passing editorial screening are sent for external peer review.
  • Typical timeline: Up to 30 days
  • Standard reviewer completion time: 1–2 weeks after acceptance
  • Reviewers are expected to respond to review invitations within 3 days. If no response is received, alternative reviewers may be invited.

Evaluation Criteria

• Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:
  • Originality and scientific significance
  • Soundness of methodology and data analysis
  • Scientific accuracy and validity of conclusions
  • Ethical compliance and reporting standards
  • Clarity, structure and quality of writing
  • Relevance to journal scope
  Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed, constructive feedback to improve manuscript quality.

Review Reports and Editorial Decision

• Reviewers submit detailed comments and recommendations. Editorial decisions may include:
  • Accept (with or without minor revision)
  • Minor or major revision required
  • Reject with option to resubmit after major improvement
  • Reject or decline submission due to scope mismatch, lack of novelty, or major scientific concerns
  The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the editorial team, makes the final decision based on reviewer recommendations and scientific merit.
  Authors are informed of decisions along with reviewer comments for improvement.

Reviewer Responsibilities

• Reviewer Responsibilities
  Reviewers are expected to:
  • Provide objective, unbiased and constructive reviews
  • Maintain strict confidentiality of manuscript content
  • Avoid using unpublished information for personal benefit
  • Declare potential conflicts of interest
  • Inform the editor if unable to complete the review on time
  • Delete or destroy manuscript copies after review completion
  If a significant conflict of interest exists, reviewers should decline the review

Confidentiality

• Editors, reviewers and editorial staff must maintain confidentiality regarding all submitted manuscripts and peer review communications. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

Conflict of Interest Policy

• Conflicts may include financial, institutional, professional, or personal relationships that could influence judgment.
  • Authors: Must disclose conflicts during submission. Disclosures are published in accepted articles.
  • Reviewers: Must declare conflicts before review. Major conflicts require declining the review.
  • Editors: Must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where conflicts exist. Alternative editors will be assigned if needed.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

• Research involving human participants or animals must follow accepted ethical standards and obtain appropriate institutional approval. Informed consent must be obtained where applicable.

Transparency and Publication Ethics

• BJDRE follows COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) ethical peer review and publication guidelines. Any suspected misconduct, including reviewer misconduct, plagiarism, or ethical violations, is investigated according to journal policy.

Post-Publication Review and Corrections

• Published articles may be:
  • Corrected (Erratum or Corrigendum)
  • Retracted
  • Updated
  if significant errors, ethical concerns, or new evidence emerge after publication.