Editor and Reviewer Responsibilities
Editor and Reviewer Responsibilities
In accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Guidelines
The Al-Rafidain Dental Journal (RDENTJ) is committed to upholding the highest standards of scholarly publishing and ethics. As part of our adherence to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), we define the responsibilities of our editors and reviewers as follows:
Editorial Responsibilities
- Editorial Independence and Integrity
Editors must make publication decisions based solely on the manuscript's academic merit, originality, relevance, and clarity, regardless of the authors’ institutional affiliation, nationality, or personal characteristics.
Editorial decisions should be free from commercial or political influence.
- Peer Review Oversight
Editors are responsible for managing a fair, unbiased, and timely peer review process.
They will select qualified, independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
- Confidentiality
Editors must ensure the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and correspondence.
Editors must not use unpublished materials for personal research.
- Dealing with Misconduct
Editors are responsible for investigating and responding to allegations of research misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication).
Proven cases will result in retraction or correction in accordance with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines.
- Corrections and Retractions
Editors must facilitate prompt publication of corrections, clarifications, retractions, or apologies when errors or misconduct are discovered.
- Conflicts of Interest
Editors should declare any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where such conflicts exist.
- Ethical Oversight
Editors must ensure submitted research complies with ethical standards concerning human or animal subjects, informed consent, and data protection.
Reviewer Responsibilities
- Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat all materials received in the peer review process as confidential and refrain from sharing or using any content for personal gain.
- Objectivity and Constructiveness
Reviews should be conducted objectively, with clear, constructive comments aimed at improving the manuscript.
Personal or discriminatory remarks are unacceptable.
- Competence
Reviewers should accept assignments only if they have sufficient expertise to provide a thorough evaluation.
- Timeliness
Reviewers must adhere to agreed deadlines. If unable to complete the review on time, they should promptly notify the editor.
- Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest (e.g., personal, financial, academic) and decline to review when a conflict exists.
- Reporting Ethical Concerns
Reviewers should alert editors to suspected ethical issues, such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data fabrication.
Other responsibilities of the RDENTJ Editorial Board are the following:
1- Suggest qualified reviewers specialized in relevant fields to assess research submissions for publication.
2-Formulate the journal's Annual Scientific Plan, establish its strategic direction, and conduct regular evaluations.
3- Adopt the journal's publication frequency (monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or annually) based on thorough statistics and justified considerations
4- Provide opinions on various scientific issues and address complaints about research ethics and scholarly publication, write commentaries, columns, or features, and attend board meetings.
5-Conduct a final review of accepted research within their field of expertise, ensuring compliance with ethical research standards, COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines, and the journal's publication rules. This includes overseeing necessary amendments and coordinating with the editor-in-chief.
6-Evaluate research within their domain of specialization as part of their editorial responsibilities, and whether those decisions are final or subject to approval by another editor.
Editorial independence
Al-Rafidain Dental Journal ensures complete editorial independence. All editorial decisions — including acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts — are made solely by the Editor-in-Chief and editorial board based on the manuscript’s academic merit, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
Editors decide what to accept or reject based solely on the quality, originality, and relevance of the research, not because of:
- Pressure from a university or institution
- Funding or commercial interests (e.g., advertisers)
- Influence from powerful individuals, societies, or companies
- Author status, politics, or nationality
- Participation in multiple boards
Participating in the editorial boards of multiple journals that have similar aims and scope, and thus compete for the same content, has the potential to generate conflicts of interest (CoIs) or conflicts of roles, commitments, and loyalties. So that when an editor has decision-making authority at two or more journals competing for the same manuscripts, they could be an editor accepting an invitation from a competing journal to be a guest editor for an initiative that could be published in the editor’s current journal. If present, the RDENTJ editor-in-chief should preclude an editor from joining the final decision for manuscript acceptance in a specific subject for more than one major journal in the same field, or result in the editor’s removal if not resolved.
- Declarations of interests
The RDENTJ asked potential editorial board members to provide a list of their potential conflicts of interest (CoIs). The list should include the potential board member’s other commitments and roles involving journals, books, and societies that produce publications (eg, membership of publication oversight committees). For their part, researchers who respond to an invitation to join an editorial board should declare potential CoIs, including any concurrent editorships and editorial board memberships. Researchers should also disclose any CoIs that arise during their appointment.
