For Reviewers

Requirements for Reviewers

All interested reviewers must meet the requirements depicted below for European Endodontic Journal.

The interested reviewer must both have a valid degree in Medicine and a Specialty diploma, or a Ph.D. in research related areas such as Biostatistics, medicine.

The interested reviewer must be academically affiliated with a university, hospital, institution or must be an educator in a research hospital with residency training.

The interested reviewer must have at least 1 original research publication listed on his or her CV. All articles pending a final decision must be included.

The reviewer is expected to review 1 to 4 at least reviews per calendar year.

The reviewer is invited to review a manuscript by an invitation e-mail which includes the proposed review duration (2 or 3 weeks) and their log-in information for the electronic submission system.

Reviewer has to log-in to the electronic submission system in 5 days after he or she received the e-mail and must inform the editorial board if they will review the manuscript or not by selecting one of the two options in the system (“I Accept” or “I Decline”). Reviewer duties are no longer valid after 5 days since we assume that you are unavailable to respond to this request.

The reviewer must complete the assigned review within the proposed review duration provided in the invitation e-mail (2 or 3 weeks according to the type of manuscript).

There are occasions where a reviewer may be unable to complete his/her review within the allotted time due to unforeseen circumstances. In this case, please contact the editor immediately so that arrangements can be made for the review to be completed in a timely fashion.

Reviewers who seek assistance from a trainee or colleague in the performance of a review should acknowledge these individuals' contributions in the written comments submitted to the editor. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript, which may prohibit the uploading of the manuscript to software or other AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured. Reviewers must request permission from the journal prior to using AI technology to facilitate their review.

High-quality review should be as follows:

• The reviewer should have identified and commented on major strengths and weaknesses of study design and methodology
• The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.
• The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.
• The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct.
• The reviewer should provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.
• The reviewer's comments to the author should be constructive and professional
• The review should provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript. (Some journals may wish a recommendation on whether the article should be published; others will not, as such decisions are usually made on priorities different than the reviewer's).