Reviewer Resources

Tools to support high-quality dental peer review.

• Reviewer checklists for study design and reporting
• COPE ethics guidance
• Templates for structured reviewer feedback
• Links to reporting standards and clinical guidelines

The editorial office can clarify scope, expectations, and timelines to support consistent reviews. Reach out if you need guidance on complex methods or specialized clinical topics.

We also provide reminders and decision summaries that help reviewers align their feedback with editorial outcomes.

• Brief summary of key findings and relevance
• Major methodological or reporting concerns
• Minor language or clarity edits
• Recommendations for figures, tables, or imaging

• Clinical trials: assess randomization, blinding, and outcomes
• Observational studies: check bias controls and confounders
• Imaging studies: review protocol clarity and calibration
• Materials research: confirm testing standards and reproducibility

• Confirm sample size justification and power statements
• Review statistical methods for appropriateness
• Check consistency between text, tables, and figures
• Identify missing data handling and limitations

• Verify ethics approval and consent statements
• Check disclosure of conflicts and funding sources
• Confirm trial registration numbers when applicable
• Assess whether limitations are clearly described

If a manuscript involves specialized methods or imaging protocols, the editorial office can provide additional guidance or connect you with relevant resources.

This ensures reviews are consistent even for highly technical submissions.

Additional templates can be supplied when needed.

Contact the editorial office with specific questions.

Responses are typically prompt.

Support is ongoing.

These tools help reviewers provide consistent, high-value feedback that strengthens dental evidence and supports evidence-based practice. Structured notes improve clarity for authors and help editors make confident decisions.

Use these resources to separate major and minor issues clearly and to document any ethical or data integrity concerns.

Clear documentation also helps authors respond efficiently to reviewer feedback.

Well-structured reviews reduce the need for repeated clarification requests.

Consistent structure supports fair evaluations.

JDOI supports authors, editors, and reviewers with timely guidance on scope, policies, and workflows. If you need clarification on requirements, data statements, or review timelines, contact the editorial office at [email protected]. We can provide templates, examples, and best-practice recommendations to help you move forward confidently. Our responses typically include next steps, resource links, and a clear point of contact. Early communication helps avoid delays, ensures consistent compliance, and improves the overall publication experience. For database verification, APC documentation, or ManuscriptZone access issues, please email the editorial office with your manuscript title and contact details.