Reviewer Guideline

The Middle Eastern and North African Journal of Dentistry & Oral Sciences (MENA-JDOS)

The Middle Eastern and North African Journal of Dentistry & Oral Sciences (MENA-JDOS) relies on its reviewers to ensure that only high-quality, original, and ethically sound research is published. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, timely, and unbiased feedback to support both the editorial team and the authors.

1. Confidentiality

  • All manuscripts and related data are strictly confidential.

  • Reviewers must not share or use manuscript content outside the review process.

2. Conflicts of Interest

  • Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, personal, or professional).

  • If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the assignment.

3. Timeliness

  • Reviews should be submitted within two weeks of accepting the invitation.

  • If additional time is required, the reviewer should promptly inform the editorial office.

4. Ethical Responsibilities

  • Maintain fairness, objectivity, and professionalism.

  • Report any concerns about plagiarism, duplicate submission, fabricated data, or ethical violations.

  • Uphold patient privacy and confidentiality when reviewing clinical research.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality & Significance – Novelty and importance to dentistry and oral sciences.

  • Scientific Quality – Sound methodology, appropriate data analysis, and valid conclusions.

  • Clarity & Structure – Logical organization, quality of writing, and presentation of tables/figures.

  • Ethical Compliance – IRB/ethics approval, informed consent, adherence to COPE/ICMJE standards.

  • Relevance – Alignment with the aims and scope of MENA-JDOS.

6. Structure of the Review

A strong review should include:

  1. Summary – Brief overview of the study and its objectives.

  2. Strengths – Highlight innovative aspects and positive contributions.

  3. Weaknesses – Identify methodological flaws, data gaps, or unclear sections.

  4. Recommendations – Provide actionable feedback for improvement.

7. Reviewer Recommendations

At the end of the review, please select one of the following:

  • Accept – Suitable for publication in current form.

  • Minor Revisions – Small improvements required.

  • Major Revisions – Substantial changes needed; further review required.

  • Reject – Unsuitable for publication in MENA-JDOS.

8. Recognition of Reviewers

  • Outstanding reviewers may be acknowledged annually with certificates, editorial board invitations, or awards.

  • Review activity may be credited through platforms such as Publons, ORCID, or Crossref Reviewer Recognition.