Home | About Us | Editorial Board | Current Issue | Archives | Search | Instructions | Subscription | Feedback | e-Alerts | Login 
Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry Official publication of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry
 Users Online: 573  
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size

  Table of Contents    
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 35  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 101

Reconnoitring the peer review process…

Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, K. D. Dental College and Hospital, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, India

Date of Web Publication10-May-2017

Correspondence Address:
Sudhindra Baliga
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, K. D. Dental College and Hospital, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_150_17

Rights and Permissions


How to cite this article:
Baliga S. Reconnoitring the peer review process…. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2017;35:101

How to cite this URL:
Baliga S. Reconnoitring the peer review process…. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent [serial online] 2017 [cited 2022 Aug 17];35:101. Available from: http://www.jisppd.com/text.asp?2017/35/2/101/206033

(Science is the eye of all)

Health science research provides deep discernments into the essential and effectual means for providing health care in all spheres. Journals, by far, are the most common way to communicate this research for further benefit. Nonetheless, shortcomings in the peer review, an imperative step in journal publishing, does impede the appropriate dissemination of knowledge.

The peer review process has existed for more than 150 years, to ensure that the rigorous standards of the scientific process are not compromised, allowing future research to build upon a solid foundation. Peer review is used by almost all scientific journals and is based on guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Journal decision-making process is an extensive procedure. Once a paper is submitted to a journal, the editor appraises the manuscript for initial editorial review based on journals scope and guidelines. Few manuscripts which do not conform to the journals prerequisites in editorial review are rejected without peer review. Only after clearing the editorial review, the manuscript is sent for peer reviewed which may be single blind or double blind. Reviewers undertake reading and evaluation of manuscripts based on the journal prerequisites and assess the quality, completeness, and precision of the paper. This assessment with suggestions on improvements is provided as a feedback to the editor, and recommendations are made whether to accept, reject, or suggest changes in the article. Decisively, journal editor contemplates the peer reviewers' reports and makes the final assessment. It is usual for peer reviewers to give contradictory opinions on the same manuscript. In these cases, the journal editor may choose to send the paper to a third reviewer before arriving at a decision. COPE provides advice to editors and publishers on all these aspects of publication ethics.

Approximately 400 articles are received by JISPPD annually. Given the large volume of manuscript submissions, a policy of screening papers before sending them for full peer review is followed. Providing a concrete review takes time and verve, and referees receive no financial compensation for their effort. Although the peer review process is unlikely to change the basic nature of a given submission, in many cases the authors may clarify views and/or revise the methods in response to reviewer's requests. Precisely, comments provided by reviewers lead to overall enhancements in the manuscript pertaining to clarity and literature review. This can only happen when expert reviewers take time to participate in the peer review process and evaluate submissions sincerely.

I wish this quality control mechanism in the form of peer review for JISPPD continues to be transparent, sincere, and rewarding for the authors as well as readers. The peer review process stands out as fundamental to journal progress and influences more than just science.


Print this article  Email this article


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (296 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded207    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

Contact us | Sitemap | Advertise | What's New | Copyright and Disclaimer | Privacy Notice
  2005 - Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 
Online since 1st May '05