Introduction

The Global Journal of Dental Specialty (GJDS) relies on the expertise and integrity of peer reviewers to maintain the quality, credibility, and scientific value of published research. Reviewers play a vital role in assisting editors in making fair, objective, and timely editorial decisions.

Reviewers are expected to conduct reviews in accordance with internationally recognized ethical standards and best practices in scholarly publishing.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers should:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively.
• Assess the scientific quality, originality, significance, and relevance of the work.
• Provide clear, evidence-based comments and recommendations.
• Respect the confidentiality of all submitted materials.
• Complete reviews within the requested timeframe.
• Declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• Share manuscript content with unauthorized individuals.
• Discuss unpublished research with others.
• Use information obtained through peer review for personal, academic, or commercial advantage.

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should immediately inform the editorial office if they identify:

• Plagiarism or substantial similarity with previously published work.
• Duplicate or redundant publication.
• Data fabrication or falsification.
• Unethical research practices.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Significant ethical concerns involving human or animal subjects.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline a review invitation if they have:

• Personal relationships with the authors.
• Financial interests related to the research.
• Academic competition or collaboration that may influence objectivity.
• Any circumstance that could create bias or the appearance of bias.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are encouraged to assess manuscripts based on:

Originality

• Does the manuscript provide new knowledge, insights, or perspectives?

Scientific Quality

• Is the study methodology appropriate and scientifically sound?
• Are the research objectives clearly defined?

Data and Results

• Are the results presented clearly and accurately?
• Do the data support the conclusions?

Literature Review

• Is the relevant literature adequately cited and discussed?

Discussion and Conclusions

• Are the conclusions justified by the findings?
• Are limitations appropriately acknowledged?

Presentation Quality

• Is the manuscript logically organized and clearly written?
• Are tables, figures, and references appropriate and accurate?

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept without revision
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Reviewers should support their recommendation with detailed comments and constructive suggestions.

Constructive Feedback

Review comments should:

• Be respectful and professional.
• Focus on improving the manuscript.
• Avoid personal criticism of authors.
• Clearly distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions.

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their assigned reviews within 4–6 weeks from the date of accepting the review invitation. Timely completion of reviews helps ensure an efficient editorial process and the prompt communication of decisions to authors.

If a reviewer anticipates any delay or is unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe, they should promptly inform the editorial office so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript content to public AI tools or third-party systems that may compromise author confidentiality. Any use of AI-assisted tools must not replace the reviewer’s independent scientific judgment and responsibility.

Recognition of Reviewers

The journal values the contributions of reviewers and acknowledges their essential role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing.

Commitment to Publication Ethics

Reviewers are expected to uphold the principles of fairness, confidentiality, transparency, objectivity, and academic integrity throughout the peer-review process and to support the journal's commitment to ethical publishing practices.