Reviewer Guideline

The Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine & Dentistry Journal (PAMD-J)

The Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine & Dentistry Journal (PAMD-J) depends on its reviewers to maintain the scientific quality, integrity, and credibility of the journal. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback that helps authors improve their manuscripts and assists the editorial team in making publication decisions.

1. Confidentiality

  • All manuscripts under review are strictly confidential.

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

2. Conflicts of Interest

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

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

3. Timeliness

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

  • If additional time is needed, reviewers should promptly notify the editorial office.

4. Ethical Responsibilities

  • Remain objective and professional; avoid personal criticism.

  • Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or unethical practices.

  • Ensure that studies involving children/adolescents respect ethical standards, consent, and assent requirements.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality & Significance – Novelty and importance to pediatric/adolescent medicine or dentistry.

  • Scientific & Methodological Rigor – Appropriateness of study design, data collection, analysis, and reporting.

  • Ethical Compliance – Proper IRB approval, parental consent, and child assent where applicable.

  • Clarity & Organization – Structure, quality of writing, and logical presentation of results.

  • Relevance – Contribution to clinical practice, research advancement, or policy in pediatrics and dentistry.

6. Structure of the Review

A well-prepared review should include:

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

  2. Strengths – Identify the innovative aspects and contributions.

  3. Weaknesses – Highlight methodological flaws, data issues, or unclear reporting.

  4. Recommendations – Provide constructive suggestions for improvement.

7. Reviewer Recommendations

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers must recommend one of the following:

  • Accept – Suitable for publication in current form.

  • Minor Revisions – Requires small improvements.

  • Major Revisions – Substantial changes required; re-review may be necessary.

  • Reject – Unsuitable for publication in PAMD-J.

8. Recognition of Reviewers

  • Reviewers may receive certificates of appreciation and may be considered for editorial board invitations.

  • Review activity may be recognized through Publons, ORCID, or Crossref Reviewer Recognition.