Focus and Scope

Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry is a scientific publication written in English language, published and fully supported by Faculty of Dentistry Universitas Padjadjaran. Published thrice a year, every March, July, and November. The submission process opens throughout the year. All submitted manuscript will be screened with double-blind peer review and editorial decision before the manuscript was accepted to be published. Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry designated as information media and scientific knowledge mainly publishing research articles. Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry receives a manuscript from all area of dentistry basic science and development with the interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approach:

  • Dental Public Health, Epidemiology, Community, and Preventive Dentistry;
  • Dental Material Science, Technology, and Biomedics;
  • Oral Biology;
  • Oral Medicine;
  • Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery;
  • Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics;
  • Dentomaxillofacial Radiology;
  • Pedodontics;
  • Prosthodontics;
  • Orthodontics;
  • Periodontics.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Peer reviewers are required to provide recommendations to help authors to improve the quality of published manuscripts and editor in determining the editorial policy, in accordance with their respective expertise.

1. Willingness 

Peer reviewers should inform the editor about the willingness to do a review on the manuscript to be published. If unwilling, peer reviewers must notify the editor.

2. Confidentiality

The reviewed manuscript is a confidential document. Communication with other parties without the author's permission is prohibited.

3. Standard Objectivity  

Peer reviewers must take hold on the principles of objectivity and avoiding personal criticism against the author of the manuscript during the review process. All comments must be accompanied by clear and supportive suggestions.

4. Reference Clarity 

Peer Reviewers are recommended to provide information to the authors of the research with the literature, or relevant case studies which have not been cited, having a substantial similarity or overlap with the manuscripts reviewed.

5. Conflicts of Interest

  • Peer reviewers are not allowed to use unpublished manuscript material for personal use without the prior written consent of the author, under any circumstances.
  • The information and ideas contained in the reviewed manuscript is confidential and should not be distributed or used for personal gain.
If having a conflict of interest for reasons of competition, collaboration, or other relationship with the author, institution or company involved in publishing, peer reviewers are not permitted to evaluate the related manuscript.

 

Publication Frequency

Currently published quarterly (March, July, and November).

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the Indonesia One Search (IOS) and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration.

 

Screening for Plagiarism

To check the possibility of plagiarism manuscript is submitted using the application Turnitin and Plagiarism Checker

 

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)  Code of Conduct and aims to adhere to its Best Practice Guidelines.

In addition, as a journal that follows the ICMJE’s Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, it is expected of authors, reviewers and editors that they follow the best-practice guidelines on ethical behaviour contained therein.

A selection of key points is included below, but you should always refer to the three documents listed above for full details.

Duties of Editors

Fair play and editorial independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively by their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. Our Editorial Board has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content. 

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

Publication decisions

The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. Chief Editor, Executive Editor, and Duty Editor is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. These three editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. AP-SMART editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If on the investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note as may be relevant, will be published in the journal.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour. AP-SMART shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. The relevant citation should accompany any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication

Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.

The publication of some kinds of articles (such as clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Authorship of the manuscript

Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named has been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or another reference number if any).

Acknowledgement of sources

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from the conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

Peer review

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and promptly, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.

Fundamental errors in published works

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, they must promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then the authors must promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.

 

Copyright Transfer Form

Download COPYRIGHT TRANSFER FORM

 

Reviewer Guidelines

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry

 

Peer reviewers play a role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The peer review process depends to a large extent on the trust and willing participation of the scholarly community and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part of the peer review process but may come to the role without any guidance and be unaware of their ethical obligations. Journals as a form of scientific publication must provide transparent policies for peer reviewers. Thus, they must conduct reviews in an ethical and accountable manner. Clear communication between the journal and the reviewers is essential to facilitate consistent, fair and timely review.

Peer review, in these guidelines, refers to reviews provided on manuscript submissions to journals, but can also include reviews for other platforms and apply to public commenting that can occur pre- or post-publication. The model of peer review will influence elements of the process.

 

Models of peer review

There are different types or models of peer review, all of which have various advantages and disadvantages. The chart below identifies key elements of the various models related to processes in peer review. Reviewers should understand their responsibilities related to confidentiality of the process and ownership of the review product based on the model of peer review being used. Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry (PJD) uses a double-blind peer review process with key elements as follow:

Being a reviewer

Professional responsibility: Researchers and experts of certain field disciplines whom met our focus and scope, and deemed necessary for maintaining the publication quality, are considered of becoming our peer reviewers. PJD establishes a formal process of appointment for our peer reviewer panel, with full consideration of expertise and reputation. All reviewers should provide us with personal and professional information that is accurate and a fair representation of their expertise, including verifiable and accurate contact information. Before any appointment made, we make sure that the potential reviewers have the necessary expertise to assess the manuscript and can be unbiased in their assessment.

Competing interests: All reviewers must ensuring a declaration against any potential competing, or conflicting, and interests. Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious. Reviewers must not review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review or agree to review a manuscript that is very similar to one they have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.

Timeliness: It is courteous to respond to an invitation to peer review within a reasonable time-frame, even if you cannot undertake the review. If you feel qualified to judge a particular manuscript, you should agree to review only if you can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed on time-frame. Always inform us promptly if your circumstances change and you cannot fulfil your original agreement or if you require an extension. If you cannot review, it is helpful to make suggestions for alternative reviewers if relevant, based on their expertise and without any influence of personal considerations or any intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome (either positive or negative).

 

Conducting a review

Initial steps: Read the manuscript, supplementary data files and ancillary material thoroughly (e.g., reviewer instructions, required ethics and policy statements, etc.), contact us if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items you need. Do not contact the authors directly without our permission no matter how urgent the situations are. It is important to understand the scope of the review before commencing (i.e., is a review of raw data expected?; etc.)

Confidentiality: Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from us. The names of any individuals who have helped with the review should included so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.

Bias and competing interests: It is important to remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or by commercial considerations. If you discover a competing interest that might prevent you from providing a fair and unbiased review, notify us for advice (e.g., There might be reviewer requests to be added as an author after publication, due to a certain level of revision; etc.). While waiting for a response, refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material in case the request to review rescinded. Similarly, notify us as soon as possible if you find you do not have the necessary expertise to assess the relevant aspects of a manuscript so as not to delay the review process unduly. Notify us if you suspect the identity of the author(s) raises any potential competing or conflict of interest, and also in for a plagiarism potentials.

Suspicion of ethics violations: If you come across any irregularities concerning research and publication ethics do let us know. For example, you may have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or you may notice the substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article. In the case of these or any other ethical concerns, contact our editorial board directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with us, but not to personally investigate further unless asked for additional information or advice.

Transferability of peer review: Reviewers may be asked to give permission for the transfer of their reviews as our policy. If a manuscript is rejected from one journal and submitted to another, and you are asked to review that same manuscript, you should be prepared to review the manuscript afresh as it may have changed between the two submissions and the journal’s criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different. In the interests of transparency and efficiency, it may be appropriate to provide your original review for the new journal (with permission to do so from the original journal), explaining that you had reviewed the submission previously and noting any changes.

 

Preparing a report

Format: Follow PJD’s provision for writing and posting the review. If a particular format or scoring rubric is required, use the tools supplied. Be objective and constructive in your review, providing feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. For example, be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements, to help our editorial board in their evaluation. Be professional and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.

Appropriate feedback: Bear in mind that our editorial board requires a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. We allow reviewers to provide confidential comments to the editor as well as comments to be read by the authors. We also ask for a recommendation to accept/revise/reject the manuscript; any recommendation should be congruent with the comments provided in the review. If you have not reviewed the whole manuscript, do indicate which aspects of the manuscript you have assessed. Ensure your comments and recommendations for our editorial board are consistent with your report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report that the authors will see. Confidential comments to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see your comments.

Language and style: Remember it is the authors’ paper, so do not attempt to rewrite it to your preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important. Also, be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues that are due to the authors writing in a language that is not their first or most proficient language, and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect. You can entrust any issues regarding language and writing style to our editorial board.

Suggestions for further work: It is the job of the peer reviewer to comment on the quality and rigour of the work they receive. If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted. It is not the job of the reviewer to extend the work beyond its current scope. Be clear which (if any) suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.

Accountability: Prepare the report by yourself, unless you have permission to involve another person. Refrain from making unfair negative comments or including unjustified criticisms of any competitors’ work that mentioned in the manuscript. Suggestions must based on valid academic or technological reasons. Do not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of your review or by requesting unnecessary additional information.

 

What to consider after peer review

You may accommodate requests from journals to review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts you have reviewed previously. It is helpful to respond promptly if we contact you about matters related to your review and to provide the information required. Similarly, you can contact us if anything relevant comes to light after you have submitted your review that might affect your original feedback and recommendations. Continue to respect the confidential nature of the review process and do not reveal details of the manuscript after peer review unless you have permission.

 

Journal History

Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry was founded in 1988 as Jurnal Kedokteran Gigi. Since the first issue in 1992, published quarterly every January, April, July, and October. The main purpose of this publication is to accommodate the results of research and scientific works of lecturers of Faculty of Dentistry Universitas Padjadjaran. With the development of the journal, finally, the writings of other university lecturers and dentists throughout Indonesia can be accommodated, making this journal as one of the reputable dentistry journal, and gained recognition in 1992 as one of the best journals to get the publishing fund from URGE. Recognition also obtained from the Directorate of Research and Community Service (DP2M) Director General of Higher Education (1999-2003 and 2003-2006), becoming one of the few accredited dentistry journal.

Along time, Jurnal Kedokteran Gigi realizes demand of international dissemination of scientific work, thus in 2007, Jurnal Kedokteran Gigi was changed into an English journal and renamed as Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry, which published three times a year, every March, July, and November, with the first English edition was published in March 2007. This journal will be published three times a year, namely March, July, and November.

In 2017, Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry has published it’s online version and has been published consistently and continuously, covering a wide range of mainly research articles, from all area of dentistry basic science and development with the interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approach. The mission of Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry is to become the leading source of dentistry basic science and development for every dentist, lecturers, scientist, clinical researchers, public health researchers, other healthcare professionals, and also wider society throughout the world, by becoming the media for publishing unique, innovative, updated, and applicative research works.