All manuscripts submitted to the Jurnal Radiologi Dentomaksilofasial Indonesia (JRDI) will first be evaluated by the managing editors to confirm they adhere to the writing guidelines, focus, and scope with high academic standards. Each manuscript will then undergo peer review by at least two reviewers under a double-blind policy. If the manuscript does not meet the required criteria, the author will be given an opportunity to revise it according to the feedback provided. However, there is also the possibility that the manuscript may be rejected outright.

Peer review process: Manuscripts that pass the initial review will be sent to at least two experts in the field for evaluation. These reviewers will be provided with an assessment form and are invited to make comments directly on the manuscript. The review process is designed to last up to six weeks and may involve multiple rounds of evaluation.

Review decision: The reviewer's decision will be considered by the Editors to determine the subsequent process of the manuscript. The following recommendations will be provided by the reviewers:

• Accept submission; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication without any revisions or changes
• Revision required; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication after being revised in response to the reviewers' comments
• Resubmit for review; means that substantive inadequacies in the manuscript, such as data analysis or research variable, type of research, the main theory used and rewriting of paragraphs so need to be revised and resubmit
• Decline submission; means that the manuscript cannot be accepted for publication because it is not within the scope of the required research or the review provided is related to a very basic problem

Revision stage: After the manuscript is received with a revision note or re-submission, the manuscript will be sent back to the author with the review form from the reviewers and the revision form. The time given to revise the manuscript is two weeks. When returning the revised manuscript, the author is required to fill in and attach the manuscript revision form provided. If the revised manuscript does not match the comments given by the reviewer, the manuscript will be returned to the author for revision.

Final decision: The final decision on the acceptability, or otherwise, of manuscripts will be taken by the editor-in-chief based on reviewers' comments presented during an editorial board meeting. Scanning for instances of plagiarism present in manuscripts will be conducted by means of Turnitin software. The manuscript can still be rejected if the author is not serious about making the necessary revisions.

Proofreading process: After the manuscript is approved and accepted by the editor-in-chief based on reviewers' comments presented during an editorial board meeting, the manuscript will undergo a proofreading process using native speaker services to maintain the quality of the language.

Final stage: The final layout of the manuscript will be sent back to the author to ensure that the content matches the author's writing. The author can revise any typos found in the final manuscript. After confirmation from the author is given, the Editor will process the manuscript for online publication on the website as well as print publication.

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The peer review process depends to a large extent on the trust and willing participation of the scholarly community and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part of the peer review process but may come to the role without any guidance and be unaware of their ethical obligations. Journals as a form of scientific publication must provide transparent policies for peer reviewers. Thus, they must conduct reviews in an ethical and accountable manner. Clear communication between the journal and the reviewers is essential to facilitate consistent, fair and timely review.

Peer review, in these guidelines, refers to reviews provided on manuscript submissions to journals, but can also include reviews for other platforms and apply to public commenting that can occur pre- or post-publication. The model of peer review will influence elements of the process.

Models of peer review

Peer review can take several forms, each with its own set of benefits and drawbacks. Reviewers should be mindful of their responsibilities concerning confidentiality and ownership of review outcomes, which can vary depending on the model used. The Jurnal Radiologi Dentomaksilofasial Indonesia (JRDI) utilizes a double-blind peer review system, characterized by the following key elements:

Being a reviewer

Professional responsibility: Researchers and experts of certain field disciplines whom met our focus and scope, and deemed necessary for maintaining the publication quality, are considered of becoming our peer reviewers. JRDI establishes a formal process of appointment for our peer reviewer panel, with full consideration of expertise and reputation. All reviewers should provide us with personal and professional information that is accurate and a fair representation of their expertise, including verifiable and accurate contact information. Before any appointment made, we make sure that the potential reviewers have the necessary expertise to assess the manuscript and can be unbiased in their assessment.

Competing interests: All reviewers must ensuring a declaration against any potential competing, or conflicting, and interests. Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious. Reviewers must not review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review or agree to review a manuscript that is very similar to one they have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.

Timeliness: It is polite to respond to a peer review invitation within a reasonable period, even if you are unable to take on the review. If you believe you are qualified to evaluate a manuscript, you should agree to review it only if you can complete the review within the proposed or mutually agreed-upon timeframe. Always notify us promptly if your situation changes and you can no longer meet your commitment, or if you need an extension. If you are unable to review, it is helpful to suggest alternative reviewers based on their expertise, without any personal biases or intentions regarding the manuscript’s outcome.

Conducting a review

Initial steps: Read the manuscript, supplementary data files and ancillary material thoroughly (e.g., reviewer instructions, required ethics and policy statements, etc.), contact us if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items you need. Do not contact the authors directly without our permission no matter how urgent the situations are. It is important to understand the scope of the review before commencing (i.e., is a review of raw data expected?; etc.)

Confidentiality: 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. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from us. The names of any individuals who have helped with the review should be included so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.

Bias and competing interests: It is important to remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or by commercial considerations. If you discover a competing interest that might prevent you from providing a fair and unbiased review, notify us for advice (e.g., There might be reviewer requests to be added as an author after publication, due to a certain level of revision; etc.). While waiting for a response, refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material in case the request to review rescinded. Similarly, notify us as soon as possible if you find you do not have the necessary expertise to assess the relevant aspects of a manuscript so as not to delay the review process unduly. Notify us if you suspect the identity of the author(s) raises any potential competing or conflict of interest, and also in for a plagiarism potentials.

Suspicion of ethics violations: If you come across any irregularities concerning research and publication ethics do let us know. For example, you may have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or you may notice the substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article. In the case of these or any other ethical concerns, contact our editorial board directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with us, but not to personally investigate further unless asked for additional information or advice.

Transferability of peer review: Reviewers may be asked to give permission for the transfer of their reviews as our policy. If a manuscript is rejected from one journal and submitted to another, and you are asked to review that same manuscript, you should be prepared to review the manuscript afresh as it may have changed between the two submissions and the journal’s criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different. In the interests of transparency and efficiency, it may be appropriate to provide your original review for the new journal (with permission to do so from the original journal), explaining that you had reviewed the submission previously and noting any changes.

Preparing a report

Format: Follow JRDI’s provision for writing and posting the review. If a particular format or scoring rubric is required, use the tools supplied. Be objective and constructive in your review, providing feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. For example, be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements, to help our editorial board in their evaluation. Be professional and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.

Appropriate feedback: Bear in mind that our editorial board requires a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. We allow reviewers to provide confidential comments to the editor as well as comments to be read by the authors. We also ask for a recommendation to accept/revise/reject the manuscript; any recommendation should be congruent with the comments provided in the review. If you have not reviewed the whole manuscript, do indicate which aspects of the manuscript you have assessed. Ensure your comments and recommendations for our editorial board are consistent with your report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report that the authors will see. Confidential comments to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see your comments.

Language and style: Remember it is the authors’ paper, so do not attempt to rewrite it to your preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important. Also, be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues that are due to the authors writing in a language that is not their first or most proficient language, and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect. You can entrust any issues regarding language and writing style to our editorial board.

Suggestions for further work: It is the job of the peer reviewer to comment on the quality and rigor of the work they receive. If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted. It is not the job of the reviewer to extend the work beyond its current scope. Be clear which (if any) suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.

Accountability: Prepare the report by yourself, unless you have permission to involve another person. Refrain from making unfair negative comments or including unjustified criticisms of any competitors’ work mentioned in the manuscript. Suggestions must base on valid academic or technological reasons. Do not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of your review or by requesting unnecessary additional information.

What to consider after peer review

You may accommodate requests from journals to review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts you have reviewed previously. It is helpful to respond promptly if we contact you about matters related to your review and to provide the information required. Similarly, you can contact us if anything relevant comes to light after you have submitted your review that might affect your original feedback and recommendations. Continue to respect the confidential nature of the review process and do not reveal details of the manuscript after peer review unless you have permission.