Journal of Oral Implantology (JOI) is in need of additional qualified reviewers with expertise in the following areas:

  • Implant basics

  • Prosthetics

  • Pharmaceuticals

  • Research related to implantology

  • Implant surgery

  • Advanced implant surgical and prosthetics techniques

  • Bone grafting techniques

  • Bone grafting materials

  • Soft tissue surgery

  • Implant body and abutment design

  • Prosthesis retention

  • Occlusion

  • Pain management

To maintain the quality of our publication, the JOI editorial staff invites qualified individuals to provide comprehensive peer reviews of submitted manuscripts.

Peer review is vital to the future of any scientific, medical or dental discipline. It allows for quality control of how clinical practice is to be conducted now and in the future.

Clinical practice is ever changing. These changes most often bring about advances that improve the predictability of our implant treatments and/or improve patient care and satisfaction. These advances come through publications put forth by the diligent efforts of researchers and clinicians. However, just as importantly, these advances come about through the work of the reviewers utilized in the peer review process. The National Library of Medicine provides guidelines that must be followed for a journal to be qualified as “peer reviewed.” JOI is peer reviewed and is appreciative of the reviewers we currently have. The number of submissions to JOI increases each year. In 2018, JOI received 347 submissions and we accepted the 73 best manuscripts for publication.

All manuscripts undergo an initial review by the Editor-in-Chief regarding topic relevancy, content, grammar, and clinical or scientific accuracy. The Senior Associate Editor-in-Chief completes a second in-depth statistical review. Once these initial processes are complete, the peer-review process begins. The Editor and Associate Editors will identify experts to review the manuscript. Reviewers are asked to undertake two tasks: 1) complete the provided numeric rubric analysis and 2) provide detailed criticism(s) of the manuscript. Both the rubric analysis and detailed criticisms are essential parts of the review. The rubric evaluation guides the reviewer's thoughts about what is needed to make a good paper. The written commentary reflects the reviewer's opinion about whether the manuscript is well-written and includes accurate, new information. JOI Associate Editor, James Ference, DMD, likens this to a personal interaction between the reviewer and the author. These comments convey the reviewer's personal assessment as to whether the information contained within the manuscript should reach the overall profession. Reviewers are also asked to provide recommendations to reject or revise (major or minor), and to question the methodologies, results, and conclusions made by the author. Typically, acceptance is not provided on the first review. This process can be painful; however, it not only assures the quality of the manuscript, but also offers significant improvements to the quality of the author's work. Reviewers are asked to put aside personal biases regarding manuscripts that contradict their own research or preferred beliefs.

To become a reviewer for JOI please go to: https://www.joionline.org.pinnacle.allenpress.com/page/reviewers. From there, you can click a link to take you to the JOI PeerTrack peer review website (https://www.editorialmanager.com/aaid-joi/default.aspx). Create a profile in the system if you do not already have one. Then, email your request to become a reviewer and your CV to the JOI editorial office at joi@peertrack.net.

All of us benefit from the research put forth by a few individuals. Therefore, we must give the review process serious effort. It is only fair to those colleagues who have the energy and courage to submit material. A good quality review, whether it is positive or negative, is an enormous contribution to the profession.