Romanian Journal of Medical and Dental Education (RJMDE) applies a single-blind peer review process to scientific manuscripts submitted for publication. The identity of the authors is known to the reviewers, while the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors.
The peer review process is coordinated by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Office and is intended to ensure the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and relevance of the manuscripts published in the journal.
1. Initial Editorial Assessment
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editorial Office before being sent for external peer review.
At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for:
- relevance to the journal’s Aim & Scope;
- compliance with the Instructions for Authors;
- completeness and overall organization of the manuscript;
- scientific and academic relevance;
- compliance with ethical and publication standards;
- originality and absence of inappropriate duplication or plagiarism.
Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the scope of the journal, do not comply with basic editorial requirements, or present significant ethical or scientific concerns may be rejected without external review.
2. Selection of Reviewers
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are submitted to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
Reviewers are selected on the basis of their scientific expertise, academic experience, and ability to provide an objective and independent evaluation.
Reviewers should not have any conflict of interest that could affect the impartiality of the evaluation. Any potential conflict of interest should be disclosed to the Editorial Office before the review is undertaken.
3. Single-Blind Peer Review
RJMDE uses a single-blind review model.
Under this model:
- reviewers have access to the authors’ names and affiliations;
- authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities;
- review reports are treated as confidential editorial documents.
Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively and confidentially and should not use unpublished information contained in submitted manuscripts for personal or professional advantage.
4. Review Criteria
Reviewers assess submitted manuscripts according to the following criteria:
- Compliance with the journal’s technical and editorial requirements
- Originality and scientific novelty of the topic, taking into consideration current knowledge and recent literature in the relevant field
- Scientific and methodological quality, including the appropriateness of the study design, methods, analysis, and interpretation of results
- Clarity, accuracy, coherence, and conciseness of the manuscript
- Relevance of the study to research, education, clinical practice, or healthcare, particularly in dental medicine, oral health, medical sciences relevant to dentistry, and related interdisciplinary fields
- Adequacy and relevance of the bibliographic references, including the use of appropriate and up-to-date scientific literature
- Consistency between the objectives, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions
- Compliance with applicable ethical standards, where relevant to the type of research presented
- Overall scientific contribution of the manuscript to the field addressed.
5. Reviewer Recommendations
Following evaluation, each reviewer may recommend one of the following editorial decisions:
- Accept without changes
- Accept after minor revisions
- Reconsider after major revisions
- Reject
Reviewers are expected to provide clear and constructive comments supporting their recommendation and, where revisions are required, to indicate the aspects that should be addressed by the authors.
6. Communication with Authors and Revision
The observations and recommendations resulting from the peer review process are communicated to the corresponding author.
The journal aims to communicate the reviewers’ observations and the editorial decision within approximately 45 days of receipt of the manuscript, depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the need for additional evaluation.
When revisions are requested, authors should submit:
- a revised version of the manuscript; and
- a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.
Where authors disagree with a reviewer recommendation, they should provide a clear scientific justification in their response.
7. Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts
Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the Editorial Office and, when necessary, returned to the original reviewers or submitted to additional reviewers.
Major revisions may therefore involve one or more additional rounds of peer review.
The submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.
8. Final Editorial Decision
The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief, taking into consideration:
- the reviewers’ reports;
- the authors’ responses to reviewer comments;
- the scientific quality and relevance of the manuscript;
- compliance with the journal’s editorial and ethical standards.
In cases where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Editor-in-Chief may request an evaluation from an additional independent reviewer before reaching a final decision.
Editorial decisions are made independently and are based exclusively on scientific and editorial considerations.
9. Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers and members of the Editorial Team must not disclose, distribute, discuss, reproduce, or use unpublished material contained in a submitted manuscript except for purposes directly related to the editorial evaluation.
10. Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers should decline an invitation to review a manuscript if they have a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or other relationship that could reasonably affect the impartiality of their evaluation.
Any potential conflict of interest identified during the review process should be communicated promptly to the Editorial Office.
11. Editorial Independence
Peer review and editorial decisions are conducted independently of commercial, institutional, personal, or other external interests.
Acceptance of a manuscript is based on its scientific merit, relevance, methodological quality, originality, and compliance with the editorial and ethical standards of the Romanian Journal of Medical and Dental Education.