Guide for Authors

We welcome original research, clinical studies, case reports, reviews, and short communications in all areas of dentistry and oral health. Please carefully review the following guidelines before submitting your manuscript.

  1. Manuscript Categories
  • Original Research Articles – Max 5,000 words
  • Clinical Case Reports – Max 3,000 words
  • Review Articles – Max 6,000 words
  • Short Communications / Technical Notes – Max 2,000 words
  • Letters to the Editor – Max 1,000 words
  1. General Submission Requirements
  • Manuscripts must be original, unpublished, and not under consideration elsewhere.
  • All submissions must be in English, using clear and concise language.
  • Use 12-pt Times New Roman, double-spaced, with 1-inch margins.
  • Submit in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) format.
  1. Manuscript Structure
  2. Title Page
  • Title of the article
  • Full names of all authors and affiliations
  • Corresponding author’s email, ORCID (if available), and full contact information
  1. Abstract (≤250 words)
  • Structured format: Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion
  1. Keywords (3–6)
  2. Main Text
  • Introduction
  • Materials and Methods
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  1. References
  • Use Vancouver style (numbered citations).
  • Include DOIs where available.
  1. Tables & Figures
  • Submit tables in editable Word format.
  • Figures should be in high resolution (≥300 dpi) in JPEG or PNG format.
  • Include figure legends and table titles.
  1. Ethical Considerations
  • Studies involving humans must include IRB/ethical approval and informed consent.
  • Animal studies must comply with institutional and international guidelines.
  • A statement of ethics approval must be included in the Methods section.
  1. Conflict of Interest & Funding
  • Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest.
  • Clearly state funding sources or indicate "No funding was received."
  1. Peer Review Process
  • All manuscripts undergo double-blind peer review.
  • Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise.
  • Typical decision time: 4–6 weeks.
  1. Submission Checklist
  • Title page with author details
  • Abstract and keywords
  • Main manuscript file (no identifying info)
  • Ethics statements included
  • References formatted in Vancouver style
  • Tables and figures submitted separately
  • Conflict of interest & funding disclosures
  1. How to Submit
  • Submit your manuscript through our online system at: [https://puadent.journals.ekb.eg/]

These guidelines serve to assist editors in ensuring a fair, transparent, and rigorous editorial process for submissions to [PUA Dental Journal]. Editors play a key role in maintaining the journal’s academic integrity and quality.

  1. Editorial Responsibilities
  • Ensure the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts.
  • Assign manuscripts to appropriate peer reviewers based on subject expertise.
  • Provide objective, timely, and constructive editorial decisions.
  • Detect and prevent ethical misconduct, including plagiarism or duplicate submissions.
  • Uphold the double-blind review process and prevent reviewer-author identity disclosure.
  1. Manuscript Triage & Initial Screening Upon receiving a submission, the handling editor should:
  • Check for scope relevance to the journal (dentistry, oral health, clinical practice, etc.).
  • Ensure the manuscript meets basic formatting and language standards.
  • Conduct a plagiarism check using appropriate software (e.g., iThenticate).
  • Verify the presence of:
    • Ethics approval (for human/animal studies)
    • Conflict of interest declaration
    • Author contributions (if applicable)

If the manuscript passes the initial checks, proceed to peer review. If not, issue a desk rejection with feedback.

  1. Peer Reviewer Selection
  • Choose 2–3 reviewers with relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest.
  • Reviewers should respond within 7 days and submit reviews within 3–4 weeks.
  • Use reviewer databases or editorial board contacts to ensure diversity and quality of reviews.
  1. Editorial Decision Process After reviews are received:
  • Assess reviewer comments and recommendations.
  • Decide among: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
  • Provide a clear justification to the authors for the editorial decision.
  • When revisions are submitted, verify if changes meet reviewer/editor expectations.
  1. Communication with Authors
  • Maintain professional, respectful, and timely communication.
  • Be transparent in conveying decisions, review outcomes, and further steps.
  • Editors must not rewrite or substantially alter reviewer comments without cause.
  1. Ethics & Misconduct
  • Investigate ethical concerns (e.g., data fabrication, duplicate publication).
  • Refer serious issues to the Editor-in-Chief and follow COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality during investigations.
  1. Editorial Workflow Summary

Stage

Timeframe

Responsibility

Initial screening

Within 5 days

Handling Editor

Reviewer assignment

Within 7 days

Handling Editor

Review completion

3–4 weeks

Reviewers

Editorial decision

Within 1 week of final review

Handling Editor

Final acceptance & production

~2 weeks

Editor-in-Chief & Production Team

  1. Collaboration with Editorial Board
  • Participate in regular editorial meetings.
  • Suggest topic areas for special issues.
  • Recommend new reviewers or board members.
  • Assist with journal promotion and outreach.
  1. Tools & Platforms Editors should be familiar with:
  • The journal’s submission and peer-review platform
  • Plagiarism detection software
  • Reference management tools (e.g., EndNote, Mendeley)
  • COPE and ICMJE guidelines
  1. Final Note: Editors are stewards of the journal’s academic reputation. Your diligence and fairness ensure that [PUA Dental Journal] remains a respected source of knowledge in the dental profession.

 

 

Reviewer Guidelines
Peer reviewers are critical to upholding the scientific and ethical standards of [PUA Dental Journal]. We greatly value your expertise and contribution to the advancement of dental science.

  1. Purpose of Peer Review The goal of peer review is to:
  • Assess the scientific quality, clinical relevance, and originality of submitted manuscripts.
  • Provide constructive feedback to authors.
  • Support the editor in making an informed decision.
  1. Reviewer Responsibilities
  • Provide an objective, unbiased, and timely review.
  • Maintain confidentiality—do not share or discuss the manuscript with others.
  • Disclose any conflicts of interest (personal, professional, financial).
  • Avoid reviewing if you're not an expert in the topic or unable to meet the deadline.
  1. Review Process You will receive:
  • A blinded manuscript (no author information)
  • A reviewer form or online checklist
  • The expected review deadline (typically 3–4 weeks)

Your tasks:

  • Evaluate structure, methodology, scientific rigor, ethics, clarity, and relevance.
  • Suggest improvements, revisions, or clarifications.
  • Give a clear recommendation:
    • Accept
    • Minor revision
    • Major revision
    • Reject
  1. Writing Your Review Please structure your review as follows:
  2. Summary
  • Briefly restate the aim and value of the study.
  1. Major Comments
  • Identify flaws in study design, data analysis, interpretation, or ethical concerns.
  • Highlight missing literature or necessary improvements.
  1. Minor Comments
  • Note issues with grammar, clarity, figure/table formatting, or references.
  1. Confidential Comments to the Editor
  • Share ethical concerns, conflicts of interest, or publication recommendations.
  • Be constructive, respectful, and clear. Avoid personal criticism.
  1. Evaluation Criteria Consider the following:

Criterion                        

Description

Originality

Is the topic novel or adding value to existing literature?

Relevance

Is it applicable to dental professionals or oral health researchers?

Methodology

Are the methods sound, ethical, and appropriately described?

Results & Interpretation

Are they logical, valid, and presented?

References

Are citations current and appropriate?

Language

Is the manuscript clear and well-written?

  1. Ethical Considerations Notify the editor if you suspect:
  • Plagiarism
  • Data manipulation or fabrication
  • Duplicate or redundant publication
  • Unethical research conduct (e.g., no ethics approval)

Need Help or an Extension? Contact the editorial office at: [editorial@journalname.org]