Indexed In
About the Journal
Policies
Visitor Stats
Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
Bali Dental Journal — Editorial Policy & Standards
Bali Dental Journal (BDJ) is committed to a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, validity, and scientific integrity of all published work. BDJ follows the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). All manuscripts submitted to BDJ undergo editorial screening followed by independent peer review before a publication decision is made.
Type of Peer Review
Double-Blind Peer Review
BDJ employs a double-blind peer review model as its standard. Both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the entire review process. This approach minimizes bias related to institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, or prior reputation, and ensures that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scientific merit.
Minimum Reviewers
Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise. In cases of conflicting recommendations between reviewers, a third reviewer may be invited at the Editor-in-Chief's discretion.
Members of the editorial board may serve as reviewers for manuscripts outside their own institution, provided no conflict of interest exists.
Review Process Overview
1
Submission & Initial Check (1–3 business days)
Upon submission, the editorial office performs an initial administrative check to verify that the manuscript meets BDJ's basic requirements: correct file format, completeness of required files (title page, main manuscript, cover letter), adherence to word count and formatting guidelines, and inclusion of a plagiarism-screened similarity report within the acceptable threshold. Manuscripts that fail this check are returned to the authors with instructions for correction before editorial review begins.
2
Editorial Screening (3–7 business days)
The Editor-in-Chief or a handling Associate Editor performs a preliminary assessment to determine whether the manuscript falls within BDJ's scope, meets minimum scientific and methodological standards, and has sufficient novelty to warrant external peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected at this stage without external review (desk rejection). Authors will be notified promptly. This allows authors to resubmit to a more appropriate journal without unnecessary delay.
3
Reviewer Invitation & Assignment (3–10 business days)
The handling editor identifies and invites at least two qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's topic. Reviewers are selected from BDJ's reviewer database, professional networks, and reference lists within the manuscript. Potential reviewers are checked for conflicts of interest (same institution, recent co-authorship, personal relationships) before invitation. Invited reviewers are given 7 days to accept or decline the invitation.
4
Peer Review (14–21 days)
Reviewers who accept the invitation are given up to 21 days to submit their structured review. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript using a standardized review form covering: scientific originality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, validity of conclusions, appropriate use of references, and ethical compliance. Reviewers may recommend: Accept as is, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. BDJ does not disclose reviewer identities to authors at any stage.
5
Editorial Decision (3–5 business days after reviews received)
The handling editor reviews all reviewer comments and makes an editorial decision, which is communicated to the corresponding author along with the full reviewer comments. The decision may be: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. The Editor-in-Chief retains final authority over all publication decisions.
6
Revision, Acceptance & Publication
Authors requested to revise their manuscript must submit a point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer and editor comment, alongside the revised manuscript with tracked changes. Minor revisions should be returned within 14 days; major revisions within 30 days. Revised manuscripts may undergo a second round of review. Once accepted, manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting, and online publication.
Target Turnaround Times
Editorial Decisions Explained
Accept
The manuscript is accepted for publication in its current form, or with only minor copyediting. This is the least common outcome after initial submission.
Minor Revision
The manuscript requires limited revisions (e.g., clarification of specific points, correction of minor errors, additional references). The revised version may be accepted without further external review.
Major Revision
Substantial revisions are required (e.g., additional experiments, expanded analysis, significant rewriting). The revised manuscript will typically be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
Reject
The manuscript does not meet BDJ's standards for scientific quality, novelty, or scope, and is not suitable for publication. Authors may be encouraged to consider resubmission after major reworking, at the editor's discretion.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are essential to the quality of BDJ. In accepting an invitation to review, reviewers agree to the following responsibilities:
Confidentiality: The manuscript is a confidential document. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose the manuscript or its content with any third party without explicit permission from the editor.
Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest (e.g., recent collaboration with authors, financial interest, personal relationship, competing research) and decline the review if a conflict exists.
Constructive Feedback: Reviews must be objective, respectful, and constructive. Personal criticism of the authors is not appropriate. Comments should help authors improve their manuscript, regardless of the final recommendation.
Timeliness: Reviewers who accept an invitation agree to complete their review within the agreed timeframe (typically 21 days). If a reviewer cannot complete the review on time, they must notify the editorial office promptly so that alternative arrangements can be made.
Use of AI in Review: Reviewers must not use AI language tools (e.g., ChatGPT) to generate or substantially draft their review reports. Review reports must reflect the reviewer's own expert analysis and judgment. Using AI to process or disclose manuscript content to a third-party tool violates the confidentiality obligations of peer review.
Appeals Policy
Authors who believe their manuscript has been rejected due to a misunderstanding, factual error, or unfair review process may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 14 days of receiving the rejection decision. Appeals must be submitted via email to the editorial office and must include:
• A clear statement of the grounds for the appeal
• A detailed, point-by-point response to each reviewer and editor comment
• Scientific justification for why the rejection decision should be reconsidered
Appeals are not a route for resubmitting substantially revised manuscripts — a new submission must be made in that case. The Editor-in-Chief's decision on the appeal is final. BDJ will acknowledge receipt of appeals within 5 business days and respond within 30 days.
Reviewer Recognition
BDJ recognizes that peer review is a significant contribution to the scientific community. In acknowledgment of reviewers' time and expertise, BDJ:
• Publishes a list of all reviewers who have contributed to BDJ in the preceding year (with their consent) in an annual acknowledgment issue.
• Provides verified reviewer certificates upon request, which can be used for academic promotion or professional development records.
• Registers reviewer activity with Publons / Web of Science Reviewer Recognition upon request.
Handling of Suspected Misconduct
If at any stage of the review or post-publication process BDJ identifies suspected research misconduct — including fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, duplicate submission, authorship manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or ethical violations — the editors will follow the COPE flowcharts and guidelines for handling such cases. This may include contacting the authors' institutions, issuing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern, and notifying indexing databases. BDJ takes all allegations of misconduct seriously and investigates them thoroughly and impartially.
Questions about the review process?
Contact the Editorial Office and we will respond within 3 business days.
nitha_dewi@unud.ac.id