The procedure for reviewing articles submitted for publication in the journal “Dentist”.

The editors check the material with the Antiplagiat system. In case of detection of multiple borrowings, the editors are guided by the rules of COPE. 
All articles submitted for publication in the journal “Dentist”, reviewed by independent experts.

The review is conducted with the aim of:

• expert assessment of the article;
• getting advice from expert reviewers;
• prevent the publication of substandard articles;
• checking the presence in the article of references to previous important work in their field;
• assess the correctness of the author’s interpretation of the data and the validity of the conclusions;
• making a decision about publishing an article.

Reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have no conflict of interest caused by competition, collaboration, or other relationships with any authors or organizations associated with the article.
Reviewers work with the article confidentially, strictly observe the author’s right to non-disclosure of information contained in the article before publication.
In some cases, the editorial board may submit an article for additional reviewing, including statistical and methodological advice, also on the terms of confidentiality.
Reviewers’ comments are sent to the author without specifying the names of reviewers.
The decision to publish (or reject) the article is taken by the editorial board after receiving the reviews and answers of the author.
The editorial board sends copies of reviews or a motivated refusal to the authors of the submitted materials.
Reviews are stored in the editorial office for 5 years.

Instructions for recalling articles.

Article withdrawal (retraction) is a message about the failure of its results or the fact of its publication. Research publications containing significant plagiarism.

Algorithm of retraction of an article from a scientific journal (adapted from COPE.).

The result of the retraction is the confirmation by the editors of the journal that it contains either fragments, but also fragments of borrowings. This does not negate the rights of editors to conduct procedures. The purpose of the punishment is to correct the data of the literature and their reliability, and not to punish the authors who “behave badly”. It is recommended to receive written explanations from all co-authors. It is likely that some of the authors have become complicit in plagiarism out of ignorance, unintentionally. This fact can be reflected in the text accompanying retraction. In some cases, significant self-plagiarism may be limited to correction procedures (as agreed with the authors).

Technical aspects of the withdrawal (retraction) of the article.

The results of the retransmission will be published in each of the versions of publications (both in print and in electronic form), indicating the published topic, which contains a review of this article, indicating the abstract as a response, as well as indicating the persons or organizations that initiated it death. In a paper version of the journal, a review message will be published in the form of the “Revocation Recall (Retraction)” heading. The same heading should be present in the Russian version of the table of contents. The publication must contain a full bibliographic reference to the article in Russian and English languages with an indication of the DOI. In the electronic version of the journal the message of retraction will be reflected in the same way as in the printed version. The withdrawn article itself cannot be deleted from the database and cannot be removed from the site. Instead, replace its PDF and HTML versions with new ones.