PEER REVIEW POLICY

EDITORIAL PROCESS

A manuscript submitted to the Journal of Clinical Prosthodontics and Implantology (J-CPI) will be considered for publication with the understanding that it is an original work, has not been published previously, is not under consideration by any other journal, and has not been accepted for publication elsewhere.

Authors are required to designate a corresponding author who will be responsible for all communications with the journal regarding the submitted manuscript. All submitted manuscripts are acknowledged upon receipt and undergo an initial editorial screening process to assess their suitability for further evaluation.

Manuscripts lacking originality, containing significant scientific or technical deficiencies, having insufficient relevance, or failing to meet the journal’s scope and quality standards may be rejected at the initial screening stage. All submitted manuscripts undergo plagiarism screening before entering the peer-review process. Manuscripts exceeding acceptable similarity limits or violating ethical publication standards may be rejected.

Review and Editing of Manuscripts: Manuscripts considered suitable for publication are forwarded to expert reviewers for detailed evaluation. Each manuscript is assigned to a member of the editorial team who, based on reviewer comments and recommendations, makes the final editorial decision.

Reviewer comments, suggestions, and decisions regarding acceptance, rejection, or required revisions are communicated to the corresponding author. Accepted manuscripts undergo professional copy editing for grammar, punctuation, formatting, and journal style requirements. Manuscripts involving statistical analysis may also be evaluated by a statistical expert to ensure accuracy and reliability.

Timeline: The average time for the first editorial decision is approximately 2 weeks. The complete publication process after acceptance may take up to 6 months. Accepted articles may be published online immediately under the "Ahead of Print" section before final issue allocation.

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The Journal of Clinical Prosthodontics and Implantology (J-CPI) follows a double-blind peer-review process, where the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation process. This ensures an unbiased and objective assessment of submitted manuscripts.

ANTI-PLAGIARISM POLICY

Plagiarism includes the unauthorized use, reproduction, or presentation of another person’s ideas, words, data, or creative work as one’s own. It also includes duplicate publication of an author's previously published work without appropriate citation or acknowledgment.

The Journal of Clinical Prosthodontics and Implantology (J-CPI) follows a strict anti-plagiarism policy. All submitted manuscripts are checked using reliable plagiarism detection software before entering the review process.

If minor similarities or accidental duplication are identified, authors may be requested to provide clarification or make appropriate revisions. In cases where plagiarism is detected after publication, the journal reserves the right to investigate the matter and take necessary actions, including notifying relevant institutions or funding agencies and retracting the published article when plagiarism is confirmed.

RETRACTION POLICY

The Journal of Clinical Prosthodontics and Implantology (J-CPI) may retract published articles under the following circumstances:

  • Clear evidence that the research findings are unreliable or invalid.
  • Plagiarism or significant duplication of previously published work.
  • Prior publication of the article without proper acknowledgment of original sources.
  • Use of materials, data, or content without appropriate authorization.
  • Violation of copyright or other serious legal concerns.
  • Research involving unethical practices or misconduct.
  • Failure of authors to disclose significant conflicts of interest.

PROCESS OF APPEALS

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they have strong evidence or valid justification in response to the comments provided by editors or reviewers.

To submit an appeal, authors must contact the editorial office with a detailed explanation supporting their request. Appeals are acknowledged and reviewed through an unbiased evaluation process.

The appeal process is generally completed within 6–8 weeks. During the appeal period, the manuscript should not be submitted to another journal. The final decision regarding an appeal rests with the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Second appeals will not be considered.

EDITORIAL PROCESS TIMELINE

  • Day 0: Manuscript submission
  • Day 1–5: Initial editorial screening
  • Day 6–7: Assignment to handling editor
  • Day 8–14: Selection of peer reviewers
  • Day 15–20: Reviewers confirm availability
  • Day 21–45: Peer-review process
  • Day 46–50: Reviewer comments sent to authors
  • Day 51–60: Authors submit revised manuscript
  • Day 61–80: Second round of peer review
  • Day 81–90: Final editorial decision