Acta Odontologica Scandinavica publishes original research papers as well as critical reviews relevant to the diagnosis, epidemiology, health service, prevention, aetiology, pathogenesis, pathology, physiology, microbiology, development and treatment of diseases affecting tissues of the oral cavity and associated structures including papers on cause and effect or explanatory/associative relationships for experimental or observational studies.
Peer review policy
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica uses an anonymous Reviewer/disclosed Author peer review model.
The primary objectives of this peer review process are twofold: first, to aid in the selection of papers appropriate for publication in Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, and second, to facilitate the enhancement of the submitted manuscripts. Reviewers are kindly requested to evaluate the quality, validity, and relevance of the manuscript under consideration, providing constructive feedback to the authors when expressing significant criticisms. Please focus on the originality, presentation, relevance to the journal's readership, and the accuracy of the methodology. More specifically, reviewers will be requested to assess the paper with regard to the following criteria:
- Design and quality of data
- Adequacy of discussion and conclusion
- Methodology
- Significance of the study in terms of providing new information or confirming valuable existing knowledge
Additionally, we would appreciate it if you could pay close attention to the manuscript's title, as it plays a crucial role. The title should be informative without being excessively lengthy. The same applies to the abstract since many readers may only review the title and abstract.
In your comments to the authors, we suggest beginning with a general overview of your thoughts on the paper, followed by a concise summary of your comments for each of the following sections: Abstract, Introduction, Methods and Materials, Results, and Discussion. Furthermore, please include minor comments on various parts of the manuscript. However, if you deem the manuscript unsuitable for publication, even after revisions, you are not obligated to provide overly detailed comments to the authors. Comments to the Editor explaining your rationale for recommending revision or rejection are highly valuable and will be handled with strict confidentiality.
It is important to note that Acta Odontologica Scandinavica is actively working to reduce publication times, and the review process plays a pivotal role in achieving this goal. Therefore, we urge you, as a reviewer, to promptly notify us if you are unable to review a manuscript or to meet the review deadline stipulated in the request. If you encounter difficulties in meeting the specified deadline, kindly inform the editorial office so that they can inform the author and make any necessary updates to the system. It is important to be aware that the current rejection rate is relatively high due to the substantial number of submitted manuscripts. Moreover, there is often a need to request authors to condense their manuscripts, reduce the number of tables and figures, and limit the number of references. Please understand that the Editor may occasionally reject papers, despite the recommendations made by the reviewers, and the relevance of the paper to the field of rehabilitation is a significant factor in such decisions.
Competing Interests
As a reviewer for Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, it is essential to uphold the integrity of the peer review process. Therefore, it is crucial to carefully consider any competing interests. Competing interests, whether financial or non-financial, personal or professional, can introduce real or perceived biases into the peer review process and may affect the study's integrity even if it is scientifically sound. Such interests can arise in relation to organizations or individuals.
If you believe you have competing interests, we kindly request that you contact the editors. The editors may either ask you to proceed with the review or choose an alternative reviewer. In either case, it is imperative that the editor is informed about the nature of these competing interests so they can take them into account when evaluating your feedback.
