Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

MISSION - To disseminate and promote the interchange of scientific information amongst the national and international dental community, by means of basic and applied research.

 

Section Policies

Book Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

BDS provides guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them. Guidelines are available in our website and from COPE (COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines). This guidance is regularly updated and is refered to the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines (http:// publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct). BDS will consider the following points:

• Reviews should be conducted objectively

• Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate

• Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references as necessary and not be defamatory or libellous

• Reviewers should declare any competing interests

• Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts in which they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers

• Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and may not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work

• Any reviewer that wants to pass a review request onto a colleague must get the editor’s permission beforehand.

BDS has systems for assessing the performance of reviewers and removing from the database those whose performance is not acceptable.

BDS also has systems in place to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected.

Reviewers will be asked to address ethical aspects of the submission such as:

• Has the author published this research before?

• Has the author plagiarized another publication?

• Is the research ethical and have the appropriate approvals/consent been obtained?

• Is there any indication that the data have been fabricated or inappropriately manipulated?

• Have the authors declared all relevant competing interests?

 

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Publication ethics and malpractice statement

Publication ethics and malpractice statement

 

1. Relations with the other editors/editorial board

The editor-in-chief will work with a team of co-editors. They will confirm the roles and responsibilities of all editors and editorial staff, so that everybody is clear about who does what.

The editorial board will be invited by the editors according with their expertise and levels of activity and involvement. BDS journal has a policy of appointing editors for a fixed time period, and the editorial committee will discuss possible changes if necessary.

Changes in the direction of the journal to redefine its scope must be undertaken in agreement with the other editors and the publisher; otherwise editorial decisions may be inconsistent. New aims and scope need to be agreed on and clearly published in whatever medium the journal uses to communicate with authors, reviewers, and editors.

 

2. Relations with authors

The editors recommend that the authors paying attention in the current guidelines. These instructions should clearly state what is expected of authors and what the journal will do in cases of suspected misconduct such as plagiarism or data fabrication. The authors should consult the link to the COPE flowcharts (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts) and Retraction Guidelines (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines). BDS provide in its website a “check list” of what is expected from authors to maintain standards of manuscripts.

Decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication will be based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal.

3. Transparency

Work with the journal publisher/editorial office to determine processes for handling submissions that are the most efficient and appropriate for the journal. The electronic submission system aids authors in providing all required information (e.g., authorship declarations, funding information). All elements must be completed before a manuscript is sent for peer review (chasing details at a later stage can delay publication and upset schedules). BDS will consider checking for the following elements (as appropriate):

• Confirmation that the authors have read and understood the Instructions to Authors

• Authorship statement explaining what each author contributed to the paper

• Funding information

• Competing interests declaration

• Permission obtained for use of copyrighted material from other sources (including the Web)

• Documentation for any citations to unpublished work (e.g., articles in press/personal communications)

• Confirmation that the manuscript is under evaluation solely to BDS and it is not published, in press, or submitted elsewhere.

 

BDS adopts and promotes an authorship policy that is appropriate to the field of research. This will include:

• requiring statements of each individual’s contribution to the research and publication

• use of checklists to prevent ghost authorship (see PLoS: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000023#s4)

• requiring all authors to sign an authorship declaration

• including all authors in communications (e.g., acknowledging receipt of a submission), not just the corresponding author

• clearly specifying authorship criteria in the Instructions to Authors For biomedical journals you might consider in addition:

• Details of ethical approval and informed consent for studies in humans

• Details of approval and ethical conduct for animal experimentation

Guidance on ethical approval for studies in humans is available from COPE (Guidance for Editors: Research, Audit and Service Evaluations: http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines).

 

4. Relationship with reviewers

BDS provides guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them. Guidelines are available in our website and from COPE (COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines). This guidance is regularly updated and is refered to the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines (http:// publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct). BDS will consider the following points:

• Reviews should be conducted objectively

• Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate

• Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references as necessary and not be defamatory or libellous

• Reviewers should declare any competing interests

• Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts in which they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers

• Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and may not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work

• Any reviewer that wants to pass a review request onto a colleague must get the editor’s permission beforehand.

 

BDS has systems for assessing the performance of reviewers and removing from the database those whose performance is not acceptable.

BDS also has systems in place to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected.

Reviewers will be asked to address ethical aspects of the submission such as:

• Has the author published this research before?

• Has the author plagiarized another publication?

• Is the research ethical and have the appropriate approvals/consent been obtained?

• Is there any indication that the data have been fabricated or inappropriately manipulated?

• Have the authors declared all relevant competing interests?

 

5. The peer-review process

The number of reviewers will be defined by the editors according to the complexity of the manuscript, with a minimum of two reviewers. The affiliations are masked, and the reviewers must complete a checklist/form within 21 days after review acceptance.

BDS has systems to ensure that material submitted to the journal remains confidential while under review.

Additionally, BDS ensures that peer review is undertaken in a timely fashion so that authors do not experience undue delays. The process is monitored regularly, trying to increase efficiency and prevent delays.

12. Responding to possible misconduct/inappropriate behaviour and dealing with complaints

The COPE Code of Conduct states will guide the editors in cases of suspected misconduct even in submissions they do not intend to publish.

COPE’s flowcharts (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts)

In case of plagiarism, data fabrication, or an authorship dispute BDS will notify other editors directly involved in dealing with the manuscript and inform the publisher. Editors may wish to consult the cases discussed at the COPE forum as well as the flowcharts and other guidance:

http://publicationethics.org/cases http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines

BDS will also deal with publishing corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed. Retractions will follow COPE’s guidance on retractions (http:// publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines).