A: Peer Review/Responsibility for the Reviewers
1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 500 to 1000 words.
4. Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
6. Reviewers should not review 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.
B: Editorial Responsibilities
1. Editors (Associate Editors or Editor in Chief) have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
6. Editors should have a clear picture of research's funding sources.
7. Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.
8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers (in half blind peer review journals).
10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to international accepted ethical guidelines.
11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
15. Editors must not change their decision after submitting a decision (especially after reject or accept) unless they have a serious reason.
Section C: Publishing Ethics Issues
1. All editorial members, reviewers and authors must confirm and obey rules defined by COPE.
2. The corresponding author is the main owner of the article so she/he can withdraw the article when it is incomplete (before entering the review process or when a revision is asked for).
3. Authors cannot make major changes in the article after acceptance without a serious reason.
4. All editorial members and authors must will to publish any kind of corrections honestly and completely.
D: Human and Animal Rights
The studies on human or animal subjects must be followed the ethical guidelines. For humans’ studies, all experiments must be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (1964). The studies which carry a risk of harm to human subjects must include a statement that all subjects understanding the process of research was conducted and completed the consent form, all authors must provide the Ethical Committee code has approved the experiments. The clinical trial studies must register the trials in IRCT and provide the clinical trial registration number and name of the trial in their manuscript.
For animal experiments, all manuscripts must describe the details if anesthetic or surgical procedure used, accordance with the rule of Helsinki to avoid animal suffering at each stage of the experiment and obtained ethics committee approval.
The clinical trial studies must register the trials in IRCT and provide the clinical trial registration number and name of the trial in their manuscript.
Submitted papers will be examined for the evidence of plagiarism using PlagScan automated plagiarism detection service. The authors are responsible for plagiarism check. It is very important for the editorial board of the Journal of Oral Health & Oral Epidemiology and the manuscript may be rejected, even if it has been accepted by reviewers.