Reviewer Guidelines

The Editorial Board of the Journal of Advanced Periodontology & Implant Dentistry (JAPID) greatly values the expertise, dedication, and time of our peer reviewers. Your critical evaluation directly ensures that JAPID publishes only high-impact, scientifically rigorous, and clinically transformative research.

Core Reviewer Responsibilities & Ethics

• Confidentiality: Treat all submitted manuscripts, supplementary data, and correspondence as strictly confidential. Do not share, cite, or utilize unpublished findings for your own work or personal benefit.
• Competing Interests: Disclose any direct institutional, professional, or financial conflict of interest immediately upon receiving an invitation. If a conflict compromises objective assessment, please decline promptly.
• Timeliness: Please complete your review within 14 days (2 weeks). If unforeseen delays arise, inform the editorial office as soon as possible to facilitate workflow continuity.
• Constructive Objectivity: Provide rigorous, impartial, and evidence-grounded feedback focused strictly on the manuscript’s scientific content. Maintain a professional, collegial tone.
• Double-Blind Integrity: JAPID operates a double-blind review process. Your identity will remain anonymous to the authors, and we request that you maintain neutrality and alertness to any potential compromise of anonymity.
• Fairness: Evaluate papers solely on scientific merit. Never base quality judgments on author language fluency or any identifiable information regarding where the work was done or who the authors are.

Evaluation Criteria & Scientific Dimensions

Reviewers should evaluate submissions across the following core dimensions:

• Originality & Scientific Significance: Does the study address a genuine, well-documented gap in periodontal or implant literature? Distinguish genuinely novel findings from incremental, purely confirmatory, or redundant work.
• Methodological Rigor & Data Integrity: Assess if the study design is appropriate (e.g., longitudinal cohorts vs. cross-sectional). Verify compliance with international reporting standards (e.g., PRISMA/SWiM, STROBE, CONSORT, CARE). Ensure appropriate bias/quality assessment tools (e.g., QUIPS, RoB 2, ROBINS-I) are utilized and statistical justifications are sound.
• Clinical Relevance & Translational Potential: Do the findings offer clear, actionable implications for patient management, risk assessment, or therapy? Ensure clinical endpoints are standardized and aligned with contemporary consensus (e.g., 2017/2018 EFP/AAP Classification).
• Clarity, Presentation, & Imaging: Is the narrative coherent and logically organized? Ensure tables are informative and diagnostic images (radiographs/clinical photos) are standardized, high-resolution, and appropriately referenced.

Citation & Reference Audit

Reviewers must actively verify the fidelity and integrity of cited references, specifically identifying:

• Unsupported Claims: Assertions or dogmas presented as facts without literature support.
• Citation Distortion: Instances where the cited paper does not substantiate the authors' claims or where correlations are erroneously cited as causal evidence.
• Decorative Citations: Superficial references inserted without substantive relevance.
• Omitted Landmark Evidence: Failure to benchmark against pivotal historical cohorts or contemporary international consensus statements.

Evaluating Revised Submissions

When reviewing a revised manuscript, please:

• Compare Point-by-Point: Cross-reference the authors' response document against the modified text to verify that requested changes were genuinely implemented.
• Scrutinize Added Content: Ensure new text, statistics, or references do not introduce novel errors or contradict unrevised sections.
• Avoid Unnecessary Cycles: If critical flaws remain or authors dismiss major valid criticisms without sound justification, advise accordingly rather than granting infinite revision cycles.

Structuring Your Review Report

Please structure your report using the following standard headings:

• Overall Assessment: Summary of the research question, principal findings, and overall contribution (substantial, moderate, limited, or negligible).
• Response to Reviewer Comments (Revised Submissions Only): Evaluation of how previous critiques were resolved.
• Originality & Significance: Detail novel strengths or potential redundancy.
• Methodological Rigor: Detail specific methodological, analytical, or bias-related strengths and deficiencies.
• Clarity & Presentation: Detail organization, clarity, and image quality.
• Clinical Relevance: Detail practical or translational value.
• Final Conclusion & Recommendation: Conclude with an integrated summary stating if flaws are correctable and if the study meets JAPID's high-impact bar.

Recommendation Categories

• Accepted as is: Rare for new submissions; reserved for revised submissions that have successfully addressed all previous critiques and are now ready for publication without further changes.
• Accepted with minor revisions: Well-executed study with limited, easily correctable issues.
• Reconsider after major revisions: High scientific value, but requires substantial methodological clarification or re-analysis. 
• Rejected with resubmission possibility: Sound core idea, but fatal current limitations require re-executing searches, re-analyzing raw data, or significant re-design. 
• Rejected without resubmission possibility: Fatal, unfixable methodological flaws, lack of novelty, or redundant findings

Contact

If you have any questions during the review process, please contact the editorial office. We appreciate your commitment to scientific excellence.