Editorial process

All articles submitted to Revista Científica Odontológica for publication will be evaluated by the editors (chief or associate), who will decide if the article can be accepted or rejected, or will send observations requesting modifications in the text.

Acceptance will imply that the article submitted complies with the requirement of addressing a subject of interest to the journal, as well as with the originality criteria and guidelines for the journal’s authors, and that consent has been given for the article to be subjected to the peer review phase.

Observations are sent when the article submitted does not comply with the formal aspects solicited and changes are required before the article can be evaluated. Articles will be rejected when they do not match the thematic interests of the journal, lack originality or fail to comply with the journal’s multiple guidelines for authors. All decisions are based upon fundamental objectives while respecting plurality of opinion. 

After concluding that an article is suitable for publication, the editor will order a peer review of the manuscript by an expert in the field (as established by their publications or academic qualifications). This peer review is anonymous (double blind), online, and ad honorem. The number of reviewers will depend on the type of article.   

Following evaluation, reviewers may conclude that the article is publishable without modifications, publishable with modifications (major [questioning the methodology, etc.] or minor [issues associated with the writing, etc.]) or not publishable. If an article is considered to be not publishable, this will imply that the reviewer considers that it contains insurmountable errors. All conclusions are objectively substantiated; the editor may consider further evaluation of the article by another reviewer if the conclusions are deemed unsatisfactory. By taking into consideration the recommendations of the reviewers, the editors will decide whether or not the article should be published. 

In the event that the author is asked to address observations made by reviewers, the author must submit the corrected article, together with a letter addressing each of the observations. The editor will decide if the corrected article is suitable for publication, or if it should be reevaluated. 

The Editorial Committee is the final instance for approving the publication of an article. Following such approval, the article will be subjected to the editing, layout and proofing stages. The author will receive the proofs and, within a period indicated by the editor, will be permitted to revise and correct the text. Any author who fails to respond to this communication will be deemed to have implicitly accepted the final version sent by the editor.