Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology
Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology
Home | About JISP | Search | Accepted Articles | Online Early | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | SubmissionSubscribeLogin 
Users Online: 774  Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font sizeWide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout

  Guidelines For Reviewers

JISP is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal with a focus on Periodontology. It aims to
  • Provide a platform for scientific expression of the Indian Society of Periodontology and provide opportunities for free exchange of ideas and information.
  • Serves as a valuable resource for periodontists, researchers, acedemicians , students and other dental professionals in all aspects of the field of periodontology
  Review Process

 The manuscript submission and editorial review process includes the following steps:

  1. An author submits a manuscript.
  2. The manuscript is screened by the Editorial Office. Those with more than an acceptable limit of technical errors are returned to the author for resubmission. Other manuscripts are sent for peer review.
  3. For those manuscripts sent for external peer review, the editorial office assigns reviewers to the manuscript.
  4. The reviewers review the manuscript.
  5. The editor makes a final decision based on editorial priorities, manuscript quality, reviewer recommendations, and perhaps discussions with fellow editors.
  6. The decision letter is sent to the author.

As a reviewer, you are responsible for the fourth step.

  • The unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Reviewers are expected not to cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published, and to refrain from using the information it contains for the advancement of their own research.
  • Consider the big picture first. Is the purpose of the study stated clearly? Did the study design approach the question appropriately? Do the results support the authorsí conclusions?
  • Try to make comments constructive. Donít just say what is wrong; say how to make it better. Even if you recommend rejection, the article may still end up in print, either in this journal or elsewhere.
  • Journal space is at a premium. Check the need for tables and figures and the adequacy of the references. Point out places where the prose can be condensed: introductions should be concise and to the point; discussions should address the implications of the new information revealed by the results.
  • Focus on content. Do not devote too much time correcting minor grammatical flaws. Do make general statements if you have concerns about the writing style or grammar; we will assure that the style and grammar meet Journal standards before the manuscript is published. Do point out unclear or ambiguous sentences and grammatical flaws that may affect meaning, especially those that may be beyond the capacity of a copyeditor not familiar with the nuances of our field.
  • A reviewer should consciously adopt a positive, impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review. Your position should be that of the author's ally, with the aim of promoting effective and accurate scientific communication.
  • If you believe that you cannot judge a given article impartially, please return the manuscript immediately to the editor with that explanation.
  • Reviews should be completed expeditiously, within 3-4 weeks. If you know that you cannot finish the review within the time specified, please inform the editor.
  • A reviewer should not discuss a paper with its author/s. If you want to consult a colleague or junior please discuss this with us first.
  • Even if we do not accept a paper we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it. For this reason please give detailed comments (with references, if appropriate) that will help both the editors to make a decision on the paper and the authors to improve it.
  • The editor gratefully receives a reviewer's recommendations, but since the editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer should not expect the editor to honor his or her every recommendation.


Apply as Referee
Submit articles
Most popular articles
Editorial Board
Email alerts
Recommend this journal