All manuscripts submitted to Bentham OPEN (BO) are peer-reviewed by members of the journal’s editorial board, expert reviewers, and the editor-in-chief. Only those manuscripts that successfully meet our quality requirements are published.
External reviewers are selected from different international indexing agencies, depending on the field of expertise relevant to the articles’ scope. Members of the editorial board and Bentham’s reviewer panel are also invited to share their opinion.
Manuscripts are forwarded to editors for evaluation initially and subsequently to independent external reviewers to check if the research work presented in the manuscript:
Regarding the first point, editors may recommend the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript by conducting a scoping, based on their knowledge and experience, or they may take assistance and advice from other experts in the field.
Regarding the second point, Bentham OPEN conducts independent peer reviews on all papers submitted for publication. Before sending any manuscript to reviewers, the publisher seeks consent from potential reviewers and editorial board members for their availability and willingness to review the paper. Correspondence between the members of the journal’s editorial office and the reviewers is kept confidential. The reviewers are asked to:
Access to the full-text version of the manuscript is provided to the agreed reviewers via our online system (https://bentham.manuscriptpoint.com/manuals/index.html). To use our online peer-review system module, please read the reviewer’s manual or watch the tutorial.
Bentham follows a double-blind peer review process where the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept undisclosed to each other, ensuring anonymity and maintaining confidentiality throughout the entire review procedure. The anonymity of reviewers ensures an objective and unbiased assessment of the manuscript by the reviewers.
After receiving the review of the manuscript by at least 2 (preferably 3) independent experts, in addition to the views of the editor, the decision is relayed to the authors via our Manuscript Processing System (MPS), which may be categorized as:
A review report provides the editor-in-chief/senior editor with an expert opinion on the quality of the manuscript under consideration. It also supplies authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers to make them acceptable for publication in the journal. Remarks that may help improve the quality of the manuscript are forwarded to the authors for their consideration.
Bentham OPEN (BO) aims to facilitate objective peer review, free of self-interested bias. It is highly recommended to avoid self-promotion in any form, including the following:
Reviewers are expected to provide advice on the following points in their review reports (depending on the type of article):
During the review process, if reviewers find any scientific misconduct or fraud, plagiarism, conflict of interest, or any other unethical behavior related to the manuscript, they are expected to inform the editorial office immediately. Similarly, if they think that they are unable to review a certain section of the manuscript, then the editorial office should also be informed.
Reviewers are required to rate manuscripts on each of the above-mentioned points, along with their remarks for authors and editors. For further details, please review a sample evaluation form [Template Evaluation Form]. The comments of the reviewers are conveyed to the authors, and they are given an opportunity to respond to them. In case the author does not agree with the comments of the reviewer, then the Editor-in-Chief may decide on the matter, or the manuscript may be sent to additional reviewers for a decision. The identity of the reviewers is always kept strictly confidential.
Publisher recommends that reviewers go through COPE Ethical Guidelines to provide quality, unbiased review reports. Please read complete guidelines on Committee on Publication Ethics available online.
Bentham OPEN recommends its reviewers to strictly adhere to COPE guidelines to comply with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.Please also refer to COPE's most popular resources, i.e., core practices, flowcharts, eLearning courses, and cases (available at COPE’s website).
The peer review of a manuscript is a confidential process. Reviewers should keep the whole process completely confidential. They should consult the EIC/senior editor and take permission before consulting another colleague for help in the peer review of the submitted manuscript.
Reviewers should not disclose any information whatsoever to anyone before the publication of the manuscript.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor's or reviewer’s own research without the written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Peer-review manipulations are dealt with as per the guidelines given by COPE.
The agreed reviewers are expected to provide their reports within 2-4 weeks since a prompt review leads to the timely publication of a manuscript, which is beneficial not only to the authors but also to the scientific community. However, a reviewer needing extra time to review should consult the editorial office.
The editorial staff relays the comments of the reviewers on behalf of the editor-in-chief/handling editor. The review reports are edited by the editor-in-chief/handling editor if the comments contain confidential information or are written in a language not suitable for scholarly communication. Reviewers should include such comments in the confidential section of the review form, which is intended to be read by the editors only.
Bentham OPEN respects requests for not having the manuscripts peer-reviewed by those experts who may have a competing interest with the author(s) of a submitted manuscript. It is not possible for editors to be aware of all competing interests; therefore, we expect that reviewers would inform the editor-in-chief/handling editor/editorial manager if they notice any potential competing interests during the review of a manuscript; reviewers are not encouraged to contact authors directly regarding any of their conflict of interest. Peer reviewers should follow journals’ policies in situations they consider to represent a conflict to reviewing. If no guidance is provided, they should inform the editorial manager in case: they work at the same institution as any of the authors (or will be joining that institution or are applying for a job there), they are or have been recent (e.g., within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders, and they have a close personal relationship with any of the authors. Reviewers are asked to re-confirm that they do not have any conflict of interest with the authors of the submitted manuscript at the time of review completion. For further details, please visit: https://opendentistryjournal.com/instructions-for-authors.php
The authors are usually requested to resubmit the revised paper within 15 days, and it is then sent to the reviewers for further evaluation. The publishers normally allow one round of revision; however, in exceptional cases, a second round of revision may be allowed. If further revision is needed, the manuscript is rejected, and the author is requested to resubmit the manuscript for fresh processing.
The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection is made by the editor-in-chief, depending on their assessment of the revisions recommended by the referees and the overall quality of the revised manuscript. In rare cases, manuscripts recommended for publication by the referees may be rejected in the final assessment by the editor-in-chief.
In case a manuscript is rejected due to its unsuitability according to the aims and scope of a particular journal, it may be transferred to another journal (with the consent of the author) that has a similar scope to the manuscript. For further details, please visit: https://opendentistryjournal.com/manuscript-transfer-facility.php
Generally, editorial decisions by Bentham OPEN do not revert. However, authors who think that their manuscripts are rejected due to a misunderstanding or mistake may seek an explanation for the decision. Appeals must give sound reasoning and compelling evidence against the criticism raised in the rejection letter. A difference of opinion regarding the interest, novelty, or suitability of the manuscript for the journal will not be considered an appeal. The editor-in-chief and other relevant editors will consider the appeal, and the decision thereafter taken by the journal will be deemed final. Acceptance of the manuscript is not guaranteed even if the journal agrees to reconsider the manuscript, and the reconsideration process may involve previous or new reviewers or editors and substantive revision.
Complaints on ethical practices or academic misconduct will be handled according to the processes outlined in our academic misconduct guidelines.
Authors who wish to make a complaint should refer to the editor-in-chief of the journal concerned by contacting the editorial office. Complaints to the publisher may be emailed to email@example.com. Bentham OPEN sends an acknowledgment to the complainant and undertakes appropriate action. For matters involving the editor-in-chief of a journal, Bentham OPEN seeks the opinion of the editor-in-chief and suitable action is then taken.
Bentham OPEN greatly appreciates the reviewers for their efforts and valuable time during the peer review process.
The complete peer-review history of a reviewer is maintained in our Online Manuscript Processing System. Each review is awarded some points, which can be redeemed by reviewers whenever they require.
Bentham OPEN has also made its publication and review information available on Publons. Publons provides formal recognition to our peer reviewers by producing a verified record of their peer reviews and editorial contributions to academic journals. Learn more about Publons at:https://publons.com/publisher/219/bentham-science-publishers
To join our reviewers’ panel, the candidates must have
Those willing to join our reviewers' panel are expected to submit their details at (REVIEWER REGISTRATION FORM)