Peer Review Policy

1. Purpose and Scope

This policy describes the peer-review process for all original research articles, systematic reviews, case reports, and clinical technique papers submitted to the Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (JCO). Its purpose is to ensure that published work meets accepted standards of scientific rigor, clinical relevance, and ethical conduct, while treating authors and reviewers fairly and consistently. This policy applies to all manuscript categories unless otherwise stated.

2. Review Model

JCO uses double-blind peer review. Author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors, throughout the review process. Reviewers are selected collegially among the JCO’s editorial and executive leadership.

Author responsibilities for blinding:

• Remove names, affiliations, and acknowledgments from the manuscript file itself; these should appear only on a separate title page.
• Avoid identifying information in the methods (e.g., “our institution’s orthodontic clinic”)—use neutral phrasing such as “a university orthodontic clinic.”
• Cite prior work by the authors in the third person, and avoid phrasing that reveals authorship (e.g., “as we previously showed” should read “as previously shown [citation]”).
• Ensure metadata is scrubbed from Word or PDF files (author name in “File > Properties,” tracked-changes history, etc.).

3. Initial Editorial Assessment

Before external review, the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor screens each submission for:

• Fit with the scope of JCO (orthodontics and related craniofacial/dentofacial research)
• Compliance with author guidelines (formatting, word count, ethical statements, blinding)
• Basic methodological soundness
• Similarity/plagiarism screening

Manuscripts that fail this stage are desk-rejected, typically within two weeks of submission, with a brief explanation provided to authors.

4. Reviewer Selection

• Each manuscript is assigned to a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise; a third reviewer may be added to resolve disagreement.
• Reviewers are selected from the JCO’s editorial board and reviewer database.
• Authors may request the exclusion of specific individuals due to conflict of interest; such requests should be justified and are considered at the Editor’s discretion.
• Reviewers must disclose any competing interests (financial, institutional, personal, or prior collaboration with the authors) and recuse themselves if a conflict exists.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on:

1. Scientific validity—appropriateness of study design, sample size, statistical methods, and data interpretation
2. Originality and contribution—the manuscript’s advancement of orthodontic knowledge or practice
3. Clarity and organization—logical structure, clarity of writing, and appropriate use of terminology
4. Ethical compliance—IRB/ethics committee approval, informed consent, registration of clinical trials where applicable, and appropriate handling of patient images or identifiable data
5. Accuracy of references—appropriate and accurate citation of prior literature

Reviewers are asked to provide a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) along with substantive comments to authors and, where relevant, confidential comments to the Editor.

6. Editorial Decision-Making

The Editor-in-Chief (or a designated Associate Editor) makes the final decision, weighing reviewer recommendations alongside their own reading of the manuscript. Possible decisions:

• Accept (with or without copyediting revisions)
• Minor revision required
• Major revision required (subject to re-review)
• Reject

Decision letters to authors summarize reviewer feedback and clearly state the rationale for the decision.

7. Confidentiality

• Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers may not share, discuss, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional advantage.
• Reviewer identities and comments are not disclosed to authors unless the reviewer consents to signed review.
• Editorial correspondence is not disclosed to third parties except as required to resolve disputes or investigate misconduct.

8. Appeals and Disputes

Authors who disagree with a decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, specifying the scientific or procedural grounds for appeal. Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult an independent reviewer or Associate Editor not involved in the original decision. The outcome of an appeal is final.

9. Research and Publication Ethics

Suspected misconduct (data fabrication, plagiarism, duplicate submission, undisclosed conflicts of interest) may result in rejection or retraction.

10. Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide timely, constructive, and specific feedback
• Base recommendations on the manuscript’s merits, not on personal or institutional bias
• Maintain confidentiality
• Decline review when a conflict of interest exists
• Refrain from contacting authors directly