Peer Review Process

Reviewer Guidelines and Policies
Brazilian Dental Science follows a single-blind peer review process, in which reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, but the authors do not know who the reviewers are. Reviewers are expected to evaluate all submissions impartially, focusing on the scientific merit and relevance of the work, regardless of author background or institutional affiliation.

The peer review process will be in the simple anonymous method, in which the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, but the reviewers know the identity of the authors. The name of the Associate Editor will be published in the final version of the article.

Preanalysis: The manuscripts will be submitted to the Editors-in-Chief and their Associates for assessment regarding their suitability for the journal's scope, priority, and potential impact of publication and citation, as well as their degree of novelty and methodology. Manuscripts that do not meet all of these requirements at this stage will be immediately rejected and returned to the authors, while manuscripts deemed appropriate will follow the regular peer review process.

Technical evaluation: Papers approved in the preanalysis stage will be evaluated for compliance with the publication rules and documentation required when submitting manuscripts to BDS. If they do not comply with the instructions, they will be returned to the authors for adjustments before being submitted for evaluation by the Associate Editors and reviewers. Only after the required documentation has been complied with will the manuscript be assigned by the Editor-in-Chief to an Associate Editor in the manuscript’s main subject area. From this stage onward, the Associate Editor becomes the editor responsible for processing and evaluating the manuscript.

Merit and content analysis: The articles approved by the Associate Editors will be evaluated for merit and scientific method by at least two ad hoc referees from institutions other than the one where the manuscript originated, in addition to the Editor-in-Chief. The evaluators will be able to recommend four options: “accepted,” “reconsider after minor corrections,” “reconsider after major corrections,” or “reject the manuscript.”

Decision: The Editor-in-Chief will decide whether to accept the manuscript. If the original needs to be revised, the manuscript will be returned to the corresponding author for modification. A revised version with the changes made and highlighted in the file must be resubmitted by the authors and will be re-evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, and reviewers, as necessary. When approved, the name of the Associate Editor will be published in the article.

Approval: Once the papers have been approved for their scientific merit, they may be submitted for a final revision of the English language by a company indicated by BDS. In cases of disagreement, the papers will be sent back to the authors for revision.

Rejection rate: The percentage of accepted articles is 15%. The 85% of rejections are divided between manuscripts rejected in preanalysis and after peer review.

Time for decision and publication: The average evaluation time for a final decision of approval or rejection is 75 days, varying according to the number of rounds of review. This does not include manuscripts that have been rejected in preanalysis, without peer review. In these cases, the response time is up to 7 calendar days. After acceptance, the estimated time for publication is 40 days.

Proofreading: Galley proof of the article will be sent to the corresponding author by e-mail in PDF format for final approval. The author will have 48 hours to correct and return the original duly revised, if necessary. Only minor changes, spelling corrections and checking of illustrations will be accepted. Extensive modifications will result in the manuscript being re-examined by the reviewers and a delay in publication. If the galley proof is not returned within 48 hours, the Editor-in-Chief will consider the unchanged version to be final. The inclusion of new authors is not allowed at this stage of the publication process. It is the sole responsibility of the authors to check that their scientific names have been properly used in the manuscript, as well as their affiliations.

Responsibilities of Reviewers
• Provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback regarding the quality, originality, methodology, clarity, and relevance of manuscripts submitted for publication.
• Highlight any major strengths, limitations, or ethical concerns within the manuscript, including conflicts of interest or issues with research integrity.
• Respond to the review invitation within 7 days, indicating whether the review will be accepted or declined. Once accepted, the reviewer must complete and submit the evaluation within an additional 7 days, for a total of 14 days from the invitation.
• Treat all manuscripts and associated data as confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the data except for the purpose of evaluation.
• Disclose any potential conflicts of interest that might affect their review, in accordance with the journal’s policy.
Reviewer Accreditation
Reviewers may opt to receive recognition for their review activities via the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service (Publons). This accreditation is offered free of charge and requires a registered profile on Publons.
Publication of Reviews
For transparency and to uphold open science principles, reviewer comments will be published alongside the article. The name of the reviewer will only be disclosed if the reviewer provides explicit written consent; otherwise, reviews will be published anonymously.
Evaluation Criteria
Reviews should address the following:
• Scientific rigor, originality, and relevance to the field of dentistry
• Appropriateness of experimental design and data analysis
• Clarity, coherence, and accuracy of the writing
• Ethical standards and compliance, especially in research involving human or animal subjects.
Communication
Comments directed to the authors should be constructive and polite, avoiding derogatory language. Additional confidential remarks to the editor may be included as appropriate. If major revisions are suggested, clear instructions and justification should be given to help authors address concerns.
Reviewer Anonymity and Recognition
While the journal practices single-blind review, reviewer names are not disclosed to authors. Reviewers can request recognition for their work through the Publons platform, if desired.
Compliance with Journal and International Standards
Reviewers are expected to follow both the policies established by Brazilian Dental Science and the broader standards set forth by leading indexing databases, ensuring reviews are fair, unbiased, and methodologically sound.
________________________________________
This version clarifies the step-by-step timeline for review acceptance and completion, and continues to include publication procedures for reviewer comments and name consent.