IJSRDMS' Editorial Board, appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. IJSRDMS adheres to a Double-blind peer-review process that is rapid and fair, and also ensures a high quality of articles published. In so doing, IJSRDMS needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts within 6-8 weeks after the time they agreed to review. Maintaining IJSRDMS as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts.

Reviewers' Responsibilities 

If you have been invited by IJSRDMS's Editor-in-Chief to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

1. Reviewing manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their works.

2. Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary.

3. Providing all required information within established deadlines.

4. Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal.

5. Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review.

6. Reporting possible research misconducts.

7. Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons.

8. Treating the manuscript as a confidential document.

9. Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript.

10. Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer.

11. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work.

12. Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge.

13. Writing review report in English only.


What Should Be Checked While Reviewing a Manuscript?

 1. Novelty

 2. Originality

 3. Scientific reliability

 4. Valuable contribution to the science

 5. Adding new aspects to the existed field of study

 6. Ethical aspects

 7. Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines

 8. References provided to substantiate the content

 9. Grammar, punctuation and spelling

 10. Scientific misconduct


A review process is an important part of an article's publication process. The editor uses it to make a decision on an article, while the author uses it to improve it.

The International Journal of Scientific Research in Dental and Medical Sciences (IJSRDMS) operates a Double-blind peer-review system.

It is important for reviewers to ensure the following before accepting to review a manuscript:

  • Their expertise is relevant to the manuscript.
  • They can dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

Conflicts of interest (COI) occur when an individual's private interests (competing interests) diverge from his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities, such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual's behavior or judgment was motivated by competing interests. WAME

A reviewer should disclose any relationships or activities that may affect their evaluation of a manuscript, and if a conflict exists, he or she should recuse himself from the peer-review process. ICMJE


A manuscript is a confidential document given to a reviewer for the sole purpose of critical evaluation.It is important for reviewers to ensure that the review process is confidential. Review process details and manuscript details should remain confidential during and after the review process.

Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. COPE


The review should be objective and honest and not influenced by:

  • The origin of the manuscript.
  • Viewpoints of the author on religion, politics, or culture.
  • Gender, race, ethnicity or citizenry of the author.

Review reports

Reviewers should consider the following factors when evaluating a manuscript:

  • Originality
  • Contribution to the field
  • Technical quality
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Depth of research

Furthermore, reviewers should ensure that the authors followed the instructions to authors, editorial policies, and publication ethics.

An accurate, objective, constructive, and unambiguous report is required. Comments should be backed by facts and constructive arguments with regards to the content of the manuscript.

It is not recommended that reviewers rewrite the manuscript; but they should make any necessary corrections and suggestions for improvement.


The reviewer should only accept a manuscript if they are confident of being able to devote adequate time to the review. It is therefore important that reviewers review and return manuscripts on time.


The reviewers should recommend either of the following:

  • Accept
  • Manuscript Needs Revision (Major Revision)
  • Manuscript Needs Revision (Minor Revision)
  • Reject

Recommendation should be backed with constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript.

All journal reviewers are from the following countries:

  • Australia
  • Bangladesh

  • Brazil

  • Bangladesh
  • Bulgaria
  • Chile

  • China

  • Colombia

  • Egypt
  • India

  • Indonesia
  • Iran

  • Iraq
  • Italy
  • Jordan
  • Lebanon
  • South Korea
  • Spain
  • Saudi Arabia

  • Malaysia
  • Mexico

  • Nigeria

  • Pakistan

  • Portugal

  • Spain

  • Turkey

  • United Kingdom 

  • Ukraine

  • United Arab Emirates

  • USA

  • Venezuela