Ethical considerations
This statement is based on the “Ethics toolkit for a successful editorial office: a COPE Guide” (https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/ethics-toolkit-editors).
For the authors: The authorship of the manuscripts must be attributed solely to those who have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the investigation, as well as to the writing and editing of the article. The main author must include all co-authors, who must review and approve the final version for publication. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to coordinate communication between the responsible editor and the rest of the authors of the submitted manuscript.
It is the authors' responsibility to present original, unpublished research (not sent to more than one magazine at a time) and not redundant (not to publish identical material in more than one magazine), and to correctly cite all external sources. Manuscripts are added to the Compilatio plagiarism detector (https://www.compilatio.net/en).
All authors must indicate any conflict of interest that could affect the interpretation of the investigation, as well as any source of financing. There are international recommendations that authors can consult, if necessary, such as SRQR for qualitative studies (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/srqr/), COREQ for interviews and focus groups (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/coreq/) or PRISMA for systematic reviews (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/prisma/).
All researchers who submit a manuscript to the journal must inform, at the time of presentation, about the use of informed consent and ethical conduct in research with human and/or animal participants, if appropriate. It is the obligation of authors to inform the magazine about the correct use of declarations of consent for research and publication.
Every investigation presented to the magazine must reveal the sources of finance and the role of the financier in the study, as well as if the financiers intervene or not in important decisions of the research process.
The journal does not require that research data related to the manuscript be available for consultation. If it is available, the author must include the data's persistent identifier.
Authors can discuss, correct or retract the content published in the magazine. For this, you must communicate as soon as possible with the editorial team to present the relevant information. The team will analyze the possibility of publishing a statement of concern, an editorial or, if proceeding, a retraction and the publication of an explanation of the case information.
In case of disputes about authorship, the author or co-author must notify the magazine as soon as possible when they are aware of a fundamental lack or inaccuracy in their article. In this case, a discreet investigation will be carried out, contacting all those involved.
For Reviewers:
Reviews for the Journal of Oral Research are double-blind and conducted by peer experts, with neither reviewers nor authors having access to each other's identities. All comments from both parties are filtered by the editorial team, which knows the identities of both parties but ensures the removal of any identifying information, such as name, affiliation, etc.
Each new article submitted to the journal is assigned to a responsible editor, who will carry out the entire process of pre-selecting articles based on thematic relevance to the journal and their subsequent submission for review, culminating in the final decision to accept or reject the article. Rejected manuscripts may not be used by editors or reviewers without first explicitly requesting permission from the author(s).
For the reviews, experts in the subject areas of each article under review are selected. In the double-blind process, each article is reviewed by two reviewers. If the results of both reviews are inconsistent, a third reviewer is selected to make the final decision.
Reviewers must notify the editors of any conflicts of interest, including ineligibility due to authorship of a manuscript. They must treat manuscripts submitted for review confidentially and may not use the studies for their own research without proper citation of the work upon publication. If reviewers wish to appoint a co-reviewer, they must first notify the editor responsible for the manuscript, who will decide whether the individual meets the journal's criteria for reviewer selection. Reviewers may not, under any circumstances, independently forward a manuscript for review to other individuals.
The manuscript review process is conducted exclusively via email to the journal, journal@joralres.com. The editor will notify reviewers to request their participation; upon acceptance, they will be granted access to the manuscript. Reviews are submitted using an official form and have a standard deadline of two weeks (14 days). Should an extension be required or if the reviewer is unable to meet the established deadline, they must inform the editorial team to agree on a reasonable extension.
If reviewers have comments regarding the research ethics of the manuscript or any other aspect of the publication, they should notify the editorial team.
Reviews are the property of the reviewers. The editorial team only consults them to decide whether to accept or reject manuscripts. The editorial team will not use reviews for its own research without the reviewers' express permission.
For editors:
In case of doubts or complaints regarding ethical issues, those interested should contact the editorial team of the journal, who will review the information provided and, if the case warrants it, will constitute a panel to carry out a discreet and impartial investigation regarding the information relative to the complaint. Depending on the seriousness of the accusation, and if the complaint is confirmed, it may give rise to different sanctions: notification to the author or reviewer of a violation of the journal's ethical standards, warning regarding unethical behavior, publication of a formal comment detailing the misconduct, publication of an editorial comment detailing the misconduct, formal removal of the papers in question from the journal along with notification to the supervisor of the the author or reviewer and the publication of an explanation of the decision to withdraw the work, up to a formal embargo on the submission of new work by the author for a specified period.
Editors are selected by the director of the journal among academics and researchers belonging to the Facultad de Odontología of the Universidad de Concepción. They are trained in the journal's internal training sessions and in external training instances.
The journal is financed by the Facultad de Odontología of the Universidad de Concepción. Journal of Oral Research does not include advertising. Editorial decisions are independent and the School does not interfere in the operation of those decisions.
Procedure for responding to unethical conduct:
Authors, editors, and reviewers must declare potential conflicts of interest, defined as those relationships that may influence their judgment inappropriately, regardless of whether or not the judgment was affected. They may be financial relationships, family ties, personal relationships, academic rivalry, or other ties. The time frame for the statement is that of the work involved (research, review, editing) from the initial conception and planning to the present.
Any complaint against the journal, reviewers, or authors should be addressed in the first instance to the editorial team, and in the case of complaints against the editorial team, they should be addressed to the director of the journal. Based on the review of the information provided, the director may constitute a panel composed of members of the Scientific Committee of the journal to review the complaint. If the complaint involves the director, it should be directed to a member of the Scientific Committee who will review the background information and may, if the case warrants, constitute a panel to review the complaint.
Any appeal against an editorial decision should be made by contacting the editorial team of the journal who will review the background information provided. Based on this review, the editorial team may constitute a panel composed of members of the Scientific Committee of the journal to review the appeal.
