International Journal of Dental Research and Technology (IJDRT) focuses on advanced dental technology and the broader field of general dentistry. It is a platform for disseminating high-quality research, clinical studies, and scientific reviews on those topics. The reviewer selection was conducted according to certain reviewer qualifications. The Academic Credentials, wherein reviewers possess a valid dental degree or a doctorate in a related field. The Research Experience, which highlights an established track record of original research publications in reputable journals, demonstrates the reviewers' necessary technical expertise. The Independency, wherein reviewers do not have any financial, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest with the authors as a person as well as their institution.

As a reviewer, you are expected to grasp the core of the author’s argument and its elucidation within the paper, and assess whether the authors demonstrate accuracy, integrity, and significance in the published research across both technological and clinical areas of dentistry. All manuscripts submitted to International Journal of Dental Research and Technology (IJDRT) undergo a double-blind peer review process to ensure impartiality. Manuscripts are assigned to two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers evaluate the scientific quality, originality, methodological accuracy, ethical compliance, and clarity of presentation according to the journal’s review guidelines.

 

REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide impartial and evidence-based assessments founded on scientific merit rather than personal preference or affiliation.
• Preserve confidentiality by treating all manuscripts, data, and communications as strictly private and not to be shared, discussed, or cited before publication.
• Declare potential conflicts of interest to the editorial team whenever financial, institutional, or personal circumstances might influence judgement.
• Offer constructive and professional commentary aimed at strengthening the clarity, methodology, and overall contribution of the work.
• Respect editorial timelines by submitting reviews within the agreed schedule or requesting extensions when necessary.
• Acknowledge diversity of research approaches across different branches of dentistry and dental technology, evaluating innovation and methodology with fairness.

Peer Review Ethics:

To maintain the integrity of the review process, reviewers are expected to observe the following ethical principles:

• Integrity and objectivity: Reviews must be based entirely on academic content and evidence.
• Impartiality: Personal, institutional, or competitive interests must not influence evaluation.
• Respect for intellectual property: Unpublished data or ideas within manuscripts must not be used for personal research or professional benefit.
• Reporting of ethical concerns: Any suspicion of plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, duplicate submission/publication, ethical violations (research involving human subjects was conducted without prior ethical review, consent issues), or author/reviewer conflict of interest should be reported confidentially to the editors.
• Recognition of editorial authority: Reviewers provide expert advice; final publication decisions rest with the editorial board.

 

REVIEW CRITERIA

Provide a clear, detailed evaluation of the paper’s argument, methodology, scientific validity, and data quality. Clearly outline major flaws, errors, and specific, actionable recommendations for improvement. Self-promotional citations must be anonymized. Use a neutral phrase when suggesting the author cite your previous work (e.g., “The authors may wish to address recent literature on this topic…”).

Introduction	● Whether the introduction defines the research problem and its relevance to dental science or technology. ● Whether the rationale and objectives are clearly stated and justified through current and pertinent literature. · Whether the context is presented logically and concisely without unnecessary repetition.
Material and Methods	● Whether the study design, population, and procedures are sufficiently described for replication. ● Whether ethical approval and informed consent are clearly documented. ● Whether analytical and statistical methods are appropriate and accurately applied. · Whether descriptions of new devices, digital systems, or materials include sufficient technical detail for comprehension and reproducibility.
Results	● Whether findings are presented in a coherent, unbiased, and transparent manner. ● Whether data visualisations such as tables, figures, and images are clear, accurate, and complementary to the text. ·  Whether the statistical data are properly reported and consistent with the methodology.
Discussion	● Whether interpretations are logically derived from the findings and supported by relevant evidence. ● Whether results are compared adequately with existing literature and contextualised within dental practice or technology. · Whether limitations are acknowledged and claims remain balanced and realistic.
Conclusion	● Whether conclusions are directly supported by the study results. ● Whether implications for clinical application, technological advancement, or future research are clearly articulated. · Whether statements are concise and devoid of overgeneralisation.

 

REVIEW PROCEDURE AND CONFIDENTIALITY

Procedure

The review process within the International Journal of Dental Research and Technology (IJDRT) follows a structured and confidential system.

1. Invitation: Reviewers receive an invitation containing the manuscript title and abstract. Acceptance confirms expertise and availability within the stated timeframe.
2. Access: Reviewers obtain secure access to the full manuscript through the electronic submission platform.
3. Assessment: Reviewers examine the content thoroughly, evaluate it using the provided criteria, and prepare clear, structured feedback.

Review Results and Recommendations:

At the end of the assessment, reviewers are required to select one of the following recommendations:

Accept without revision	The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
Accept with minor revision	The manuscript is sound and requires only small corrections or clarifications.
Major revision required	The manuscript needs substantial improvement or clarification before further consideration
Reject but encourage resubmission	The research has potential but requires extensive redevelopment.
Reject	The manuscript does not meet the scientific, ethical, or editorial standards of International Journal of Dental Research and Technology (IJDRT).
*All recommendations must be accompanied by reasoned and constructive remarks supporting the decision.

 

1. Submission of Report: Reviewers submit their reports online, including comments addressed to the authors and confidential notes for the editors if necessary.
2. Editorial Decision: Editors consider all reviewer reports before making the final publication decision.

6. Post-Review Confidentiality: Reviewers must continue to regard the manuscript and its content as confidential after submission of the review.

Information to be clearly stated or anonymized in the manuscript for the review process:

Allocation	Displayed	Clearly stated	Anonymized
Reviewers (in Manuscript)		· Title · Main body text (Abstract – Reference)	· Author/s name,  affiliation, and email address · Any personal acknowledgments or statements identifying specific grants, institutions, or ethics boards · Any identifying details in the figures, datasets, and appendices · References to author’s previous work (must be written in the third person – e.g., “Smith et al. demonstrated…” instead of “As we previously showed….”)
Authors (in Referee report)		· Substantive feedback, critique of the research, methodology limitations, data validity, and suggestions for improvement	· Reviewers identities