All manuscripts received by the Al-Rafidain Dental Journal will be selected and assessment process (initial review) by the Managing Editor to ensure their accordance with the writing guidelines, focus, and scope with excellent academic quality. The manuscripts will be peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers within the framework of a double-blind policy. If they do not meet the conditions, the author will be given the opportunity to revise their manuscript according to the given criteria. However, there is also the possibility that the manuscript will be directly rejected.
Papers submitted for publication must not have been published or accepted for publication elsewhere. We will use iThenticate to check similarities prior to sending it to reviewers. We will notify corresponding authors within one to two months about their manuscripts through our online system.
Peer review process
The manuscript that has passed the initial review stage will be sent to at least two reviewers who are experts in the field of the submitted manuscript. The reviewers will be provided with an assessment form and are encouraged to provide comments directly on the text of the manuscript. Two months are the maximum time for a round of review process. This process can be done in one or more rounds.
1. Submission of Article: The corresponding or submitting author submits the article to the RDENTJ. This is usually via an online system.
2. Structural Assessment: The Exudative Director checks the article's composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the article is not assessed at this point.
3. Editor-in-Chief Assessment and Processing: The Editor-in-Chief checks that the article is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the article may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
4. Plagiarism Check-up: The article at this step is tested by Ithenticate for similarity results, if it is less than 20% the article is considered to be reviewer assigning, or else the article is rejected due to similarity results.
5. Invitation to Reviewers: The Editor-in-Chief sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained (two accepted reviewer decisions).
6. Response to Invitations: Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then accept or decline.
7. Review is Conducted: The reviewer sets time aside to read the article several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the article without further work. Otherwise, they will read the article several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
8. Journal Evaluates the Reviews: The Editor-in-Chief considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
9. Decision: The Editor-in-Chief sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. The reviewer's name is anonymous to the author (s).
Review decision: The reviewer’s decision will be considered by the Editors to determine the subsequent process of the manuscript. The following recommendations will be provided by the reviewers:
- Accept submission; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication without any revisions or changes
- Revision required; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication after being revised in response to the reviewers’ comments
- Resubmit for review; means that substantive inadequacies in the manuscript, such as data analysis or research variable, type of research, the main theory used, and rewriting of paragraphs need to be revised and resubmitted
- Decline submission; means that the manuscript cannot be accepted for publication because it is not within the scope of the required research or the review provided is related to a very basic problem
10. Author Send Revised Manuscript: Revision stage: After the manuscript is received with a revision note or re-submission, the manuscript will be sent back to the author with the review form from the reviewers and the revision form. The time given to revise the manuscript is four weeks. When returning the revised manuscript, the author is required to fill in and attach the manuscript revision form provided. If the revised manuscript does not match the comments given by the reviewer, the manuscript will be returned to the author for revision. The author should make the changes asked by the reviewer and should highlight these changes in red or yellow shadow.
11- Final Decision: The final decision on the acceptability, or otherwise, of manuscripts will be taken by the editor-in-chief based on reviewers' comments presented during an editorial board meeting. Scanning for instances of plagiarism present in manuscripts will be conducted using Ithenticat software. The manuscript can still be rejected if the author is not serious about making the necessary revisions. If accepted, the author should pay the publication fee, the article should be sent for the proofing process.
11.1 Appeals process
If the author(s) believe that the article has been rejected unfairly, please submit an appeal (rebuttal) letter via: [email protected]. Do not try to submit a revised version of your article at this stage. Appeals must be submitted within 30 days of the rejection decision.
Appeals will only be considered if all specific points of the reviewers’ and editors’ comments are addressed in the rebuttal letter, and decisions will only be reversed if the editors are convinced that the decision was a serious mistake, or if the reviewers made errors of fact or showed evidence of bias. Appeals against editorial fit or the journal not being the right journal for the article are unlikely to be considered. If it is thought that the appeal is warranted, the article, reviewers’ comments, and the author’s response will be reviewed internally by the editorial team. The editor will decide whether to invite a resubmission, send it to another external reviewer, or uphold the original decision. In all cases, the editor’s decision is final.
The author(s) can either appeal the decision or transfer the manuscript. The author(s) cannot do both as we do not allow papers to be under simultaneous consideration at more than one journal.
If the author(s) appeal the original decision, however, an appeal is rejected, we do not accept multiple requests to appeal so you may wish to consider transferring your manuscript to another journal after the appeal rejection.
11.2 Author Complaint
The authors have the right to complain and ask explanation if they perceive any misconduct in any applicable policies and ethical guidelines. The authors can raise their complaints by submitting a letter to: [email protected]
All the complaints regarding delinquencies in the work processes are investigated according to the prevailing publication ethics practices.
Once a complaint is received, at first an acknowledgment is sent to the complainant with assurance that appropriate action will be taken on the complaint within three working days excluding the complaint receiving date.
The investigation process is initiated by the editor according to the directions of the Editor-In-Chief. After the investigation is over, a meeting is held with a complete report on the complaint. The decision is taken and the same is forwarded to the concerned scholar through his submitted email ID.
We consider complaints as an opportunity to enhance our existing manuscript processing system. All the received complaints are dealt with in a polite and timely manner with certainty.
12- Proofreading process: After the manuscript is approved and accepted by the editor-in-chief based on reviewers' comments presented during an editorial board meeting, the manuscript will undergo a proofreading process using native speaker services to maintain the quality of the language.
13- Final stage: The final layout of the manuscript will be sent back to the author to ensure that the content matches the author's writing. The author can revise any typos found in the final manuscript. After confirmation from the author is given, the Editor will process the manuscript for online publication on the website as well as print publication.
