Peer Review Policy

The Libyan Journal of Dentistry operates a rigorous, transparent, double-anonymized peer-review system as the principal mechanism for assessing the scientific merit of every submission. This document sets out the stages of the review process, the criteria for selecting reviewers, the rights and responsibilities of reviewers, and the standard timeline that authors can expect.

Principles of the Review System

Anonymity

The reviewer does not know the author's name or institutional affiliation. The author does not know the identity of the reviewer assessing the manuscript. The Editorial Office removes all identifying information from the manuscript prior to sending it for review, including authors' names, affiliations, email addresses, and funding acknowledgments that could reveal identity.

Impartiality and Objectivity

Reviewers are required to evaluate the manuscript solely on its scientific merit, independent of any personal, institutional, geographical, or sectarian considerations.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must maintain absolute confidentiality regarding the contents of the manuscript. They may not share, discuss, distribute, or use the material in any form outside the assigned review task.

COPE Alignment

LJD adheres to the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) at all stages of the review process.

Stages of the Peer Review Process

Stage 1 — Initial Screening

Within seven working days of submission, the editorial office screens the manuscript for scope, formatting compliance, completeness of declarations, and similarity index. Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements are returned to the author for revision before external review begins.

Stage 2 — Manuscript Anonymization

The editorial secretariat prepares an anonymized version of the manuscript, removing all identifying information, replacing self-references with neutral phrasing, and assigning a unique Manuscript ID for all subsequent correspondence.

Stage 3 — Reviewer Invitation

The handling editor invites at least two independent external reviewers whose expertise matches the subject of the manuscript. Each invitation includes a formal review request, the anonymized manuscript, a review form, a confidentiality and conflict-of-interest declaration, and a clear deadline. Reviewers are expected to respond to the invitation within 72 hours.

Stage 4 — Evaluation

Reviewers assess the manuscript against the criteria of originality, scientific validity, methodological soundness, clarity, ethical conduct, and relevance. They submit a structured report with a recommendation chosen from four options: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

Stage 5 — Editorial Decision

On the basis of the reviewers' reports and the handling editor's own assessment, the Editor-in-Chief issues the editorial decision. Where reviewers disagree substantially, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer or make a reasoned decision after careful consideration of all reports. Reviewer reports are anonymized and shared with the corresponding author together with the decision letter.

Stage 6 — Revision and Re-evaluation

Authors receiving a revision decision are asked to submit a revised manuscript with a point-by-point response to the reviewers. The standard time allowed is 30 days for minor revisions and 60 days for major revisions. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or to additional reviewers as the handling editor deems appropriate.

Stage 7 — Final Decision

After re-evaluation, the Editor-in-Chief issues the final decision. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copy-editing, typesetting, and publication.