Peer-Review Policy

1. Peer Review Model

Al-Rafidain Dental Journal follows a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review.

Each manuscript is typically evaluated by two external, independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewers’ feedback and editorial judgment.

2. Reviewer Selection

Authors may:

  • Suggest potential reviewers during submission, but these suggestions are subject to editorial approval. Suggested reviewers must have:

    • An institutional email address (not generic emails like Gmail or Yahoo)

    • A valid ORCID ID and affiliation, where available

  • Request the exclusion of specific reviewers, but must provide a valid reason. Excessive exclusion requests may not be honored if they limit the pool of qualified reviewers.

⚠️ Misconduct notice: Falsifying reviewer information including suggesting fake identities or false contact details is a serious ethical breach. If detected, it will result in immediate rejection of the manuscript and may lead to further action under the journal’s misconduct policy, following COPE guidelines.

3. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and respectful feedback on the manuscript's content, originality, structure, and scholarly merit.

  • Evaluate:

    • The scientific quality, relevance, and significance of the research

    • The clarity of presentation and logic of the argument

    • The ethical integrity of the methods and data, where applicable

  • Offer clear recommendations: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject

  • Avoid personal criticism and ensure feedback is framed to help the author improve

4. Ethical and Confidentiality Standards

Reviewers must:

  • Treat the manuscript as confidential and do not share, discuss, or use the content for any purpose beyond peer review

  • Disclose any conflicts of interest (COI) such as:

    • Financial interests

    • Personal or professional relationships with the authors

    • Institutional affiliations that could bias their judgment

  • Decline to review if any COI exists or if they do not have sufficient expertise

COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers are followed in full. Violations may result in removal from the reviewer database.

5. Timelines

Reviewers are usually expected to:

  • Respond to the review invitation within 7 days

  • Submit their full review within 15 days of acceptance

If extensions are needed, reviewers should notify the editorial office as early as possible.

6. Review Editing and Anonymity

The editorial team may edit reviewer reports for clarity, grammar, or tone — but will not alter the meaning or recommendation.

Authors do not know the identity of reviewers, and reviewers do not know the authors' identities.

7. Appeals and Disputes

Authors may appeal a rejection decision if they believe it was:

  • Based on factual errors

  • Influenced by potential reviewer bias or misconduct

Appeals will be reviewed by a senior editor or an editorial board panel not involved in the original decision.

8. Reviewer Recognition

We appreciate the time and expertise of our reviewers. With their permission, we may:

  • Publicly acknowledge them annually

  • Recommend recognition via third-party platforms (e.g., Publons, ORCID)

9. Misconduct Handling

Any suspected misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, peer review manipulation) will be investigated in line with our Ethics & Misconduct Policy, following COPE flowcharts and best practices.