Sulaimani Dental Journal
Peer‑Review Policy
Open-access, double‑blind review | CC BY‑NC‑SA 4.0
Sulaimani Dental Journal is a tri‑annual, peer‑reviewed, open-access journal publishing high-quality research across all fields of dentistry. The peer‑review process is a cornerstone of academic integrity, ensuring the scientific validity, originality, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.
Invitations are sent to experts in the relevant field.
Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to invitations and submit their reviews within 2 weeks of acceptance.
If unable to review, reviewers should promptly decline to avoid delays.
The review process is double-blind: both the author's and reviewer's identities are concealed.
Manuscripts and associated data are confidential and must not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the editorial process.
Reviewers must not use the manuscript’s content for personal gain.
After the review, all manuscript files must be deleted or securely destroyed.
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest, including financial, academic, or personal relationships.
Reviews should be conducted impartially and objectively, free from bias or prejudice.
Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following:
Relevance to the journal’s scope.
Originality and contribution to the field.
Study design and methodology: clarity, rigor, and reproducibility.
Data analysis and interpretation: accuracy and logical consistency.
Presentation of results: clarity of figures, tables, and structure.
Ethical compliance and conflict-of-interest disclosure.
References: adequacy, relevance, and currency.
Language and formatting according to SDJ guidelines.
Comments and notes of the review process are best added to the manuscript document using the MS Word comment function, and the reviewed manuscript can then be uploaded to the submission system through the reviewer's dashboard. You can add the suffix "-Reviewed" to the name of the manuscript file before uploading it to the system. Our editorial office will remove any reviewer identifying features from the manuscript document before sending it back to the submitting author for revision during the review process. However, reviewers are free to send their review notes and comments at their convenience. Reviewers can add their notes and comments in the specific sections provided in the reviewer dashboard or include their comments in a separate file and upload it to the system.
Before making a submission, authors are responsible for obtaining permission to publish any material included with the submission, such as photos, documents, and datasets. All authors identified on the submission must consent to be identified as an author. Where appropriate, research should be approved by an appropriate ethics committee, as required by the legal requirements of the study's country.
An editor may desk reject a submission if it does not meet minimum quality standards. Before submitting, please ensure the study design and research argument are properly structured and articulated. The title should be concise, and the abstract should be able to stand on its own. These requirements will increase the likelihood that reviewers will agree to review the paper. When you're satisfied that your submission meets this standard, please follow the checklist below to prepare your submission.
Use constructive language.
Focus on strengths and areas that need improvement.
Refer to specific lines, sections, or figures where required.
Avoid making final publication recommendations to the author—this is the editor’s decision.
Include your recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Resubmit Elsewhere, or Reject.
Flag any ethical concerns (e.g., plagiarism, data manipulation).
These comments remain confidential and are not shared with the authors.
Reviewers are encouraged to flag any suspected plagiarism, duplicated publication, or unethical research practices.
If you suspect unethical behavior or scientific misconduct, report it confidentially to the editor.
If more time is needed, notify the editorial office as soon as possible.
If you feel unqualified or unable to provide an unbiased review, please decline the invitation promptly.
Sulaimani Dental Journal adheres strictly to COPE's guidelines regarding reviewer misconduct. The following outlines our policy on misconduct:
Reviewer misconduct includes, but is not limited to:
Breach of Confidentiality: Sharing or misusing unpublished manuscript content.
Plagiarism or Misappropriation: Using ideas or data from the manuscript in one’s own work.
Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest: Failing to report potential biases.
Unprofessional Conduct: Making discriminatory, inappropriate, or aggressive remarks.
Manipulation of the Review Process: Falsifying reviewer identities or delegating a review without editorial approval.
Incompetent or Fraudulent Review: Submitting irrelevant, careless, or fabricated reviews.
Allegations may arise from editors, authors, or third parties.
The Editor-in-Chief conducts a preliminary investigation and may escalate to an internal ethics committee.
Reviewers will be given an opportunity to respond to the allegation.
If misconduct is confirmed, the journal may impose one or more of the following actions:
Formal written warning.
Removal from the reviewer database.
Notification to the reviewer’s institution or funding agency.
Reporting to COPE or another appropriate ethics body.
Public correction or retraction if the misconduct impacts published content.
Reviewers may appeal decisions by submitting a written request within 30 days. Appeals will be reviewed independently by members of the editorial board.
For reviewer guidelines, FAQs, or technical assistance, please visit the journal website or contact the Editorial office.
Note: This policy is reviewed and updated annually to ensure compliance with international best practices and COPE standards.