International Journal of Stomatology seeks to publish the best research from all aspects of oral science and related interdisciplinary fields, including basic, applied and clinical research. The journal publishes fully peer-reviewed Expert Forum, Expert Consensus, Original Articles and Research Reports, Reviews, Case Report, and other columns.
Topics of particular interest with in the journal's scope include, but are not limited to, those listed below:
● Oral microbiology
● Oral and maxillofacial oncology
● Cariology
● Oral inflammation and infection
● Dental stem cells and regenerative medicine
● Craniofacial surgery
● Dental material
● Oral biomechanics
● Dental implants
● Oral, dental and maxillofacial genetic and developmental diseases
Plagiarism is when an author attempts to pass off someone else's work as his or her own. Duplicate publication, sometimes called self-plagiarism, occurs when an author reuses substantial parts of his or her own published work without providing the appropriate references. Plagiarism without dishonest intent is relatively frequent, for example, when an author reuses parts of an introduction from an earlier paper.
Because of some confusion as to the appropriate use of other authors' writing, we offer the following guideline in addition to the normal principles regarding plagiarism: if more than 10 consecutive words are taken verbatim from the text of another publication (including the authors’ own work), this fact should be indicated by the use of inverted commas, as well as citation of the original source. It is not appropriate to make trivial changes to the wording instead. This rule can be relaxed slightly for descriptions of methodology from the authors’ own papers, or for common phrases. If plagiarism is found, the journal will contact the author and, in some cases, the author's institute and funding agencies. The paper containing the plagiarism will be marked on each page of the PDF, and depending on the extent of the plagiarism, the paper may be formally retracted.
When reporting studies on human beings, indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional or regional) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.
For prospective studies involving human participants, authors are expected to mention about approval of regional/ national/ institutional or independent Ethics Committee or Review Board, obtaining informed consent from adult research participants and obtaining assent for children aged over 7 years participating in the trial. The age beyond which assent would be required could vary as per regional and/ or national guidelines. Ensure confidentiality of subjects by desisting from mentioning participants’ names, initials or hospital numbers, especially in illustrative material. When reporting experiments on animals, indicate whether the institution’s or a national research council’s guide for, or any national law on the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
All authors must disclose any and all conflicts of interest, they may have with publication of the manuscript or an institution or product that is mentioned in the manuscript and/or is important to the outcome of the study presented. Authors should also disclose conflicts of interest with products that compete with those mentioned in their manuscript. A conflict of interest may exist when an author (or the author’s institution or employer) has financial or personal relationships or affiliations that could influence (or bias) the author’s decisions, work, or manuscript. All authors are required to complete and submit the Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest.
Note: This form will be requested after a manuscript has been submitted, but authors should also include conflict of interest disclosures in the Acknowledgment section of the submitted manuscript.
● Editors have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error).International Journal of Stomatology abides by COPE Retraction Guidelines.
● The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication).
● It constitutes plagiarism.
● It reports unethical research.
● The reviewer should provide an honest, critical assessment of the research. The reviewer should not manipulate the process to force the authors to address issues interesting or important to the reviewer but peripheral to the objective(s) of the study.Reviewers' identities are not released to authors, except when reviewers specifically ask to be identified. If reviewers wish to reveal their identities while the manuscript is under consideration, this should be done through the Editor. Should a reviewer contact an author directly, we ask authors to inform the Editor as soon as possible. We prohibit any attempt by authors to confront reviewers or determine their identities. Our own policy is to neither confirm nor deny any speculation about reviewers' identities, and we encourage reviewers to adopt a similar policy.
● The reviewer should maintain confidentiality about the existence and substance of the manuscript. It is not appropriate to share the manuscript or to discuss it in detail with others or even to reveal the existence of the submission before publication.
● The reviewer must not participate in plagiarism. It is obviously a very serious transgression to take data or novel concepts from a paper to advance your own work before the manuscript is published.
● The reviewer should always avoid, or disclose, any conflicts of interest. For example, if the reviewer has a close personal or professional relationship with one or more of the authors such that his/her objectivity would be compromised. Scientific merit should be the basis for all reviews.
● The reviewer should accept manuscripts for review only in his/her areas of expertise.
● The reviewer should agree to review only those manuscripts that can be completed on time. Sometimes, unforeseen circumstances arise that preclude a reviewer from meeting a deadline, but in these instances the reviewer should immediately contact the editor.
● The reviewer also has the unpleasant responsibility of reporting suspected duplicate publication, fraud, plagiarism, or ethical concerns about the use of animals or humans in the research being reported.
● The reviewer should write reviews in a collegial, constructive manner. This is especially helpful to new investigators. No one likes to have a paper rejected, but a carefully worded review with appropriate suggestions for revision can be very helpful.
● Decision on the Publication of Articles. The editors are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to International Journal of Stomatology should be published. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board subjected to such legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may consult with reviewers in making this decision.
● Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit.
● The editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.
● Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript while handling it in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author.
● The editors should not hold conflicts of interest with authors whose work they are assessing, e.g. if they are from the same institution or collaborate closely. In this case the Editor-in-Chief or a suitable editorial board member will make final acceptance decisions for submitted papers.
● The editors require skills of proofreading, copy editing, developmental editing, line editing and editing for search engine optimization.
● It is the responsibility of the editor to reject a piece of writing that appears to be plagiarized or ghost written by another sub-editor. He should check that a particular piece is neither self-plagiarized, nor has been published before elsewhere.
A manuscript will be reviewed for possible publication with the understanding that it is being submitted to International Journal of Stomatology alone at that point in time and has not been published anywhere, simultaneously submitted, or already accepted for publication elsewhere. The journal expects that authors would authorize one of them to correspond with International Journal of Stomatology for all matters related to the manuscript. On submission, full time editors review all submitted manuscripts initially for suitability for formal review. Manuscripts with insufficient originality, serious scientific or technical flaws, or lack of a significant message are rejected before proceeding for formal peer-review. Manuscripts that are unlikely to be of interest to the journal readers are also liable to be rejected at this stage.
Manuscripts that are found suitable for publication in International Journal of Stomatology are sent to two or more expert reviewers. During submission, the contributor is requested to provide names of two or three qualified reviewers who have had experience in the subject of the submitted manuscript, but this is not mandatory. The reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institutes as the contributor/s. The selection of these reviewers is at the sole discretion of full time editors. The journal follows a double-blind review process, wherein the reviewers and authors are unaware of each other’s identity. The journal holds a meeting bimonthly to make the final decision on whether or not to publish a manuscript, with the chief editor and editorial board members of the journal as attendees. The comments and suggestions (acceptance/ rejection/amendments in manuscript) received from reviewers are conveyed to the corresponding author. If required, the author is requested to provide a point by point response to reviewers’ comments and submit a revised version of the manuscript. This process is repeated till reviewers and editors are satisfied with the manuscript. Authors have the right to appeal against the rejection decision by contacting the editors or editorial director and resubmit their manuscript after modification.
● Substantial contributions to the conception and design, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data;
● The drafting of the article or critical revision for important intellectual content;
● Final approval of the version to be published;
● Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the article are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contributions to each of the four components mentioned above.
Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the collection of data does not justify authorship. General supervision of the research group is not sufficient for authorship. Each contributor should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content of the manuscript. The order of naming the contributors should be based on the relative contribution of the contributor towards the study and writing the manuscript. Once submitted the order cannot be changed without written consent of all the contributors. Manuscripts must be submitted by one of the authors of the manuscript, and should not be submitted by anyone on their behalf. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the article during submission and peer review.