Guide for Reviewers

The IJO Editor-in-Chief will be immediately notified of the submission and invited to perform a check and recommend reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief  can decide to continue with the peer-review process, reject a manuscript, or request revisions before peer-review.

From submission to final decision or publication, the managing staff coordinates the review process and serves as the main point of contact for authors and reviewers. IJO operates double-blind peer-review, where in addition to the author not knowing the identity of the reviewer, the reviewer is unaware of the author’s identity.

At least two review reports are collected for each submitted article. The IJO Editor-in-Chief will use qualified Editorial Board members, qualified reviewers from our database, or new reviewers identified by web searches for related articles.

The authors can not only recommend potential reviewers, but also enter the names of potential peer-reviewers they wish to exclude from consideration in the peer-review of their manuscript. The editorial team will respect these requests as long as they do not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission.

The following checks are applied to all reviewers:

    • They hold no conflicts of interest with the authors, including if they have published together in the last five years
    • They hold a MS or a DDS with an orthodontic specialty
    • They must have recent publications in the field of the submitted paper

Reviewers who accept to review a manuscript are expected to:

    • Have the necessary expertise to judge the manuscript quality
    • Provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout the peer-review
    • Maintain standards of professionalism and ethics

Reviewers who accept a review invitation are provided 7–10 days to write their review via our online platform.

For the review of a revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide their report within three days. Extensions can also be granted on request.