Peer review policy

Peer review policy
Mustansiria Dental Journal (MDJ) runs a double-blind peer review policy that includes three reviewers. All manuscripts must be presented through the online manuscript submission system. For a manuscript with minimal MDJ requirements and within the magazine's objectives and scope, the editor-in-chief sends the manuscript to the editor of the magazine section who in turn sends the manuscript to three two reviewers of the same specialty and statistical references. Turnitin is used to verify similarities before starting a review. An email will be sent to notify the corresponding authors within one to two months, informing them of the acceptance of or rejection of their manuscripts through our online system. MDJ relies on external reviewers to review the manuscript provided; In addition, the editorial board has a key role in selecting manuscript reviewers depending on their specialization and academic reputation.


  1. Submission of Article:

The corresponding or submitting author submits the article to the MDJ. This is usually via a journal online system.

  1. Structural Assessment:

The Exudative Director checks the article's composition and arrangement against the journal's Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the article is not assessed at this point.

  1. Editor-in-Chief Assessment and Processing:

The Editor-in-Chief checks that the article is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the article may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

  1. Plagiarism Checkup:

The article at this step is tested by Turnitin for similarity results, if it is less than 15%, the article is considered for reviewer assigning; else, the article is rejected due to similarity results.

  1. Assign to Section Editor:

The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to a section editor, who in turn sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained (two accepted reviewer decisions).

  1. Response to Invitations:

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then accept or decline.

  1. Review is Conducted:

The reviewer sets time aside to read the article several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the article without further work. Otherwise, they will read the article several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

  1. Journal Evaluates the Reviews:

The Editor-in-Chief considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

  1. Primarily Decision:

The Editor-in-Chief sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. The reviewer's name is anonymous to the author(s).

  1. Author Send Revised Manuscript:

The author should do the changes asked by the reviewer to do, and should highlight these changes in red or yellow shadow.

 11- Final Decision:

If accepted, the author should pay the publication fee, and the article sends to the page designer and then to the publisher.