General Information

EOR adheres to the ethical policies set forth by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html#three), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) (http://www.wame.org/about/recommendations-on-publication-ethics-policie), Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf) and Council of Science Editors (http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-3-reviewer-roles-and-responsibilities/).This document is based on similar documents developed by these organizations.

Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are usually not part of the editorial staff. Because unbiased, independent, critical assessment is an intrinsic part of all scholarly work, including scientific research, peer review is an important extension of the scientific process. It is the responsibility of the journal to ensure that systems are in place for selection of appropriate reviewers. It is the responsibility of the editor to ensure that reviewers have access to all materials that may be relevant to the evaluation of the manuscript, including supplementary material for e-only publication, and to ensure that reviewer comments are properly assessed and interpreted in the context of their declared conflicts of interest. The editor of a journal is ultimately responsible for the selection of all its content and editorial decisions may be informed by issues unrelated to the quality of a manuscript, such as suitability for the journal. An editor can reject any article at any time before publication, including after acceptance if concerns arise about the integrity of the work.

The European Oral Research (EOR) uses double blind independent peer-review system. Reviewers contribute to the editorial process by assisting authors to improve their work and by providing their opinion on the suitability of the papers for publication in a timely manner. Reviewers should promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief and excuse themselves from the process if they will not be able to complete the review by the time frame agreed upon or think that they are not qualified to provide suggestions. A manuscript sent for evaluation should be treated as a confidential document and its content should not be discussed with others. Reviewers should not seek the identity of the authors. Reviewers cannot use the information they gained by reviewing a manuscript for their own research purposes until it is published. Reviewers should provide their objective criticism based on scientifically and/or logically proven background. Personal comments are not appropriate. All comments and/or questions directed to the authors should be stated clearly and concisely. Reviewers should be alert for inadequate citation of previous work and similarity between the manuscript under consideration and published papers. In order to avoid any potential conflict of interest, reviewers should immediately contact the Editor-in-Chief and refuse to take part in the editorial process if the manuscript they agreed to examine is closely related to their ongoing research projects which can result in competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connection with the authors.

Reviewers’ Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should respond to the review invitation as soon as they can. Whether they agree to review or not, delayed replies will slow down the process considerably.
Reviewers should only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the expertise required to carry out a proper assessment.
Reviewers who agree to review a manuscript must complete their reviews within the specified time period.
Reviewers should provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
Reviewers should always remember that the manuscripts submitted to journals are privileged communications and authors may be harmed by premature disclosure of any or all of a manuscript’s details. Reviewers therefore should keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly confidential. They must not publicly discuss authors’ work before the manuscript is published.
Reviewers must not retain the manuscript for their personal use and should destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting their reviews.
Reviewers should declare their conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists.
Reviewers should not seek the identity of the authors. If they suspect the identity of the author(s) they should notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
Reviewers who have reviewed a manuscript before for another journal should inform the Editor before they complete the review. The Editor can then decide whether a re-review is appropriate.
Reviewers should not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
Reviewers should be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments.
Reviewers should recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.
Before reviewing the manuscript, all reviewers should read above-mentioned electronic documents in order to understand their ethical responsibilities.
Reviewers’ Technical Responsibilities

Before reviewing a manuscript, reviewers must be sure that they have necessary expertise and time to complete the process. They must also be sure that they do not have any potential conflict of interest.
Upon accepting the invitation for review, reviewers should immediately contact with the journal if they are unable to open text files, figures or any other supplementary materials.
Reviewers should give their overall opinion and general observations of the manuscript. Their comments should be clear and concise, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including their names. A paragraph that summarizes the overall weaknesses and strengths of the manuscript, whether it contains novel information that can provide sufficient impact in their field of expertise would be very useful for the editorial process.
Reviewers should describe the manuscript type clearly in their report (Original research, case report or review).
Reviewers should check the title and make sure that it reflects the content.
Reviewers should check whether the manuscript conforms to journal standards with respect to length, format and writing style.
Reviewers should check whether the abstract section represents the content and conclusions of the manuscript. They should also check whether word limits and organization adhere to the journal standards (Word limits are; 250 words for original research articles, 150 words for case reports and review articles. Abstracts for original research articles should be structured under purpose, materials and methods, results, conclusion headings. Abstracts for case report and review articles should be unstructured).
Reviewers should check whether the keywords are appropriate and whether they conform to general standards.
Reviewers should examine the introduction section to check whether it includes necessary background information on the topic and specific, clearly identifiable questions to be addressed in the research. The research hypothesis should have been clearly described in this section.
Editorial Board of the EOR gives special importance to the repeatability of experimental research. Accordingly, in the materials and methods section, authors should be encouraged to provide detailed information on the experimental process and reviewers should feel free to ask about as much detail as possible. Reviewers must be sure that the information provided in the manuscript would enable other researchers to easily repeat the experiment.
Reviewers should check the results section to make sure that the findings are described clearly and in a logical order. Whenever possible, this order should match that of materials and methods section. Tables and figures are very important components of the manuscript and each should be self-explanatory with a caption. They should be well-designed and appropriately labeled. Data presented in the tables or figures should not be repeated in the main text. Reviewers should consider and comment on the number and quality of the visual elements.
Reviewers should check the scientific background and originality of the interpretation provided in the discussion and conclusion sections. All interpretations should be supported by the data. Reviewers should encourage the authors to discuss their findings and to provide logical explanations, also supported by the data, especially for the inconsistencies between their findings and that of other researchers. Following the same logical order as previous sections should be encouraged.
Reviewers should check whether the manuscript includes a clear statement of the ethical considerations concerning clinical or animal studies.
If reviewers suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns they should immediately contact with the editor and provide a detailed account of their claims.
Reviewers should check whether the scientific terminology used in the manuscript follows current standards in their field of expertise.
Reviewers should comment on whether the manuscript conforms to accepted rules of English grammar, punctuation, spelling and use of capitals. It is not the responsibility of the reviewer to correct such errors.
Reviewers are free to provide other suggestions which are not covered above to the authors. Requests of private communication with the Editor regarding the manuscript should be addressed to the Editorial Office at eor@istanbul.edu.tr
Reviewer must provide a final recommendation on the manuscript's suitability for publication in its current form. “Accept submission” indicates that the manuscript can be published as is. If the reviewer’s final decision is “revisions required”, any major or minor changes in the manuscript must be confirmed by the reviewer who had originally suggested the revisions. if the “decline submission” decision has been reached, the manuscript has been found unsuitable for publication by the reviewer. The reason for any type of final recommendation, especially the “decline submission”, should be explained in detail.
Reviewers will be provided with standard electronic forms via e-mail. They will be asked to fill out these documents. Reviewers may also send their additional comments in separate text files.
Upon finalizing the review process, a certificate will be awarded to the reviewer as a token of journal’s appreciation and as a formal proof of completing the process.