To maintain the quality of our publication, the Journal of Oral Implantology (JOI) editorial staff invites qualified individuals to provide comprehensive peer reviews of submitted manuscripts.
Watch the video below for a quick guide on how to submit reviews.
Reviewers must have expertise in one or more of the following areas:
· Implant basics
· 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
· Pain management
· Treatment planning
Become a Reviewer
To become a reviewer for JOI please:
Step 1. Create a profile through our JOI PeerTrack peer review website (https://www.editorialmanager.com/aaid-joi/default.aspx)
Step 2. Email your request to become a reviewer along with your CV to the JOI editorial office at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Peer Review Process
All manuscripts undergo an initial review by the Editor-in-Chief regarding topic relevancy, content, grammar, clinical or scientific accuracy and editorial space availability. 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 the appropriate expert Reviewers to review the manuscript. Reviewers are asked to undertake two tasks: 1) complete the provided numeric rubric analysis and 2) provide detailed constructive 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 manuscript.The written commentary reflects the reviewer's opinion about whether the manuscript is well-written and includes accurate, new information. 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 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.
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.