Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Dentino: Jurnal Kedokteran Gigi is the leading international dental journal within the field of Restorative Dentistry. Placing an emphasis on publishing novel and high-quality research papers, the Journal aims to influence the practice of dentistry at clinician, research, industry and policy-maker level on an international basis.

Topics covered include the management of dental disease,periodontology, endodontology, operative dentistry, fixed and removableprosthodontics, dental biomaterials science, long-term clinical trials including epidemiology and oral health, technology transfer of new scientific instrumentation or procedures, as well as clinically relevantoral biology and translational research.

Dentino: Jurnal Kedokteran Gigi will publish original scientific research papers including short communications. It is also interested in publishing review articles and leaders in themed areas which will be linked to new scientific research. Conference proceedings are also welcome and expressions of interest should be communicated to the Editor.

 

Section Policies

Editorial

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

artikel

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

1. General Overview of Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to this journal must follow Focus and Scope and Author Guidelines of this journal. The submitted manuscripts must fulfill scientific merit or novelty appropriate to the focus and scope of this journal. 

Articles published in Dentino: Jurnal Kedokteran Gigi are reviewed first by at least two or more reviewers before being published. By default, the review method used is blind peer-review where reviewers can still find out the author's identity. However, if the writer wants a double-blind peer-review process, we may provide it as authors request. We really appreciate the participation of reviewers because the quality of the article can be maintained because the reviewers work voluntarily. The decision to accept whether or not an article is made by the Chief Editor through the Editor's Board is based on recommendations or comments from the reviewers.
 
Plagiarism screening of texts submitted to this journal is carried out with the help of Google Scholar or Turnitin apps. The more plagiarism, the article will be immediately rejected (if more than 20% does not include a bibliography).
 
Since Volume 1 Issues 1 (2016) Dentino: Jurnal Kedokteran Gigi is started to publish all article in English. All article which submitted in Bahasa Indonesia will be translated in English by the Editor and the permission is asked to the Authors. All manuscripts submitted to this journal must be written in good English. Authors for whom English is not their native language are encouraged to have their paper checked before submission for grammar and clarity.  

The final decision of manuscript acceptance is solely made by Editor in Chief and Associate Editor according to reviewers' critical comments. The final decision of the manuscript is solely based on the Editor's final review which considering peer-reviewers comments (but not solely by Reviewer).


2. Spesific Overview of Peer-Review Process

Reviewers will be asked to provide comments in a detailed and constructive manner where the comments will be the basis for consideration for editors to reject or accept articles that have been submitted. Some things that need attention from the reviewer are as follows:


a. Originality and significance

Reviewers are asked to discuss the originality of the findings submitted in an article. In addition, reviewers should see whether the findings can significantly influence the scientific community. If the reviewer finds the same work as the article being reviewed, the reviewer can provide suggestions or criticism to improve the way the research results are delivered.


b. The novelty of the theoretical approach and how to discuss the problems

Reviewers are asked to discuss the novelty of the theoretical approach and the way the authors discuss the results of research to solve problems. This novelty element can usually be seen in the introduction section as an introduction to the urgency of the research that has been done.


c. Strengths and weaknesses of the method used

Reviewers are expected to be able to assess the method used. Statistical analysis or other analytical methods that affect the interpretation of results should be criticized in order to improve the quality of the article being reviewed.


d. Reliability of the appearance of research results and conclusions

Reviewers are expected to be able to assess the reliability of the research results and conclusions obtained. This reliability can be assessed through the completeness of the analysis and the data that has been obtained.


e. Layout alignment with the guidelines

Alignment with the guidelines will make it easier for editors to do the editing and lay-outing process. Many writers often ignore this and only format their writing incompletely and perfectly according to the guidelines given. Reviewers can assess this but the main focus is on the content and some previous points.


f. Suggestion and feedback

When found several errors or shortcomings of an article, the reviewer is expected to be able to show clearly, which parts should be improved and what needs to be done to improve the quality of the article.


3. Confidentiality

For reviewers, we request that no articles or research results be disseminated under review. If you are not willing to maintain this policy, we would appreciate if you, as a prospective reviewer, give other prospective reviewer that are more suitable in interest or expertise to the editorial board.


4. Other Technical Problems

Reviewers are expected to return articles that have been commented before the deadline that has been determined. If you need extra time to do the review, the reviewer is expected to immediately contact the editorial board. The results of the review can be submitted online through our OJS. However, if you experience difficulties in returning the results of the review, the results of the review can be sent via email: [email protected].

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Publication Frequency

Dentino: Jurnal Kedokteran Gigi published twice a year, every March and September.

 

Screening for Plagiarism

Screening for Plagiarism with Turnitin

 

Publication Ethics

Dentino: Jurnal Kedokteran Gigi is a peer-reviewed journal following the guidelines of the Publications Ethics Committee (COPE) in publication ethics regarding research cases and publication violations. This statement regulates the ethical behaviour of all parties in this journal's publishing articles, including writers, chief editors, managing editors, editor members, reviewers, and publishers. 

 

Research Ethics Policies for Studies Involving Human Subjects Participation

The authors are responsible for safeguarding participant confidentiality and anonymity throughout the data collection, analysis, and reporting process. In the case of studies involving human subjects, authors must first obtain approval from their institutional ethics committee and follow recognized standards, such as the Declaration of Helsinki, to minimize harm to participants. They must also obtain informed consent from participants and ensure that any information collected does not contain any identifiable data. For children, parental or guardian consent is required before data collection, and for other vulnerable individuals, authors must obtain informed consent. Authors must obtain informed consent for publication from all participants in their study. Finally, authors must consider the potential risks and take steps to minimize them when working with potentially vulnerable participants.

 

Guidelines for Journal Publication

Publication of articles in a peer-reviewed Dentino: Jurnal Kedokteran Gigi is an important part in the development of science based on coherence and mutual respect. This is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support it. Peer reviewed articles support and embody scientific methods, so it becomes important to agree on ethical standards for all parties involved in publishing articles in journals, including Authors, Editor in Chief, Associate Editors, Reviewers, Publishers and the public.

Universitas Lambung Mangkurat as the publisher of Dentino: Jurnal Kedokteran Gigi takes a serious obligation to maintain every step of the publishing activities and understand the code of ethics and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertisements, printing and other activities that generate other income do not have an impact on editorial decisions. Furthermore, Universitas Lambung Mangkurat  and the Editorial Board will help communicate with other journals and / or publishers where needed.

 

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
  2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
  3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Author should not in general submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced
  4. Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
  5. Authorship of the Paper: The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.
  6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
  7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
  8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

 

Duties of Editor

  1. Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.
  2. Review of Manuscripts: Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
  3. Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
  4. Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.
  5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest

 

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  2. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work
  4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.  Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
  5. Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.