The peer-review process and reviewer recommendations
Editor-in-Chief and editorial assistants check the submission files to confirm the availability of the required documents and, if appropriate, will be sent to an associate editor and two or more external reviewers.

Manuscripts will be reviewed for content, originality, Plagiarism (Intihal.net and iThenticate), importance to the field, appropriateness of statistical analysis, and derivation of conclusions. 

Authors should note that manuscripts may be returned after an initial review by the editorial office if the paper is deemed unlikely to be reviewed favorably under insufficient interest for the European Annals of Dental Sciences readership. This rapid rejection process enables the author to promptly submit for publication elsewhere.

If sent for review, the outcome may be acceptance with or without revisions, non-acceptance with an opportunity to make revisions for resubmission or rejection. Manuscripts being revised by the authors will be held by the editorial office for a maximum of 60 days, after which a new submission is required. Please contact the editorial office if you are not able to make this deadline.

The manuscripts that pass the preliminary review process are sent to at least two independent reviewers within the scope of double blind review. If one referee gives a positive opinion and one referee gives a negative opinion, the manuscript is sent to a third referee. In order for the manuscripts submitted to our journal to be published, at least two referees must decide that the manuscript is publishable.

Submitting a revision
Depending on the number of revisions requested, revisions will be returned to the original reviewers or the editors will conduct the review. New reviewers will be enlisted at the discretion of the editor. Not all revised manuscripts will be accepted. With rare exception, the European Annals of Dental Sciences will not review more than 3 revisions of the same manuscript.

All changes made in a revised manuscript must be annotated via highlight or different font color. This will help reviewers locate the changes that correspond with your point-by-point response. Do not use the Track Changes feature to mark your changes, as this often makes manuscripts difficult for reviewers and editors to read. Please note in your cover letter if the changes are so extensive (i.e., more than 75% of the document) that it would be unreasonable to annotate the changes.

​Responses to reviewers and editors should be included as a text (.doc or .docx) file with the manuscript files and named response to reviewers. A template to use as a guide is provided in Appendix C.

Rebuttals
On rare occasions, editorial decisions may be re-considered. Authors with serious concerns about potential scientific errors in the review process may send a rebuttal letter to the editor. Only written appeals will be considered. Rejected manuscripts may be resubmitted for consideration only with the explicit permission of the Editor-in-Chief. In such cases, the submission will be given a new manuscript number and date of receipt and will be treated as a new manuscript.

Publication Process
After undergoing technical, academic and linguistic reviews, the articles are typeset and edited, made ready for publication and published in the issue deemed appropriate by the editor-in-chief.  

NOTE: The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision on acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final.