At Archives of Dental and Medical Sciences, we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and transparency. Our peer review process strives to adhere strictly to the principles laid out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and supports a fair, unbiased, and timely evaluation of all submissions.

Authors submit their manuscripts via our online submission system, ensuring compliance with the journal’s Author Guidelines.

Initial Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief reviews the manuscript for-

·       Scope

·       Compliance submission guidelines

·       Ethical approval

Plagiarism- 10-15% similarity index will be acceptable (after excluding references and small matches), <20% AI- generated text is acceptable. 

Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they do not meet basic quality or ethical standards.

 

Peer review

The manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by two or more independent reviewers. Reviewer selection is based on subject relevance, academic credibility, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Authors are provided with anonymized reviewer comments and are expected to submit a revised version along with a detailed response letter.

Re-review

Revisions will be re-evaluated by original reviewers.

Final Decision and Acceptance

Upon satisfactory revisions, the manuscript is accepted and forwarded for publication.

Copyediting, Proofing and Publication

Accepted articles undergo copyediting, formatting, and typesetting. Authors will receive proof for final approval. Finalized articles are published online.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Archives of Dental and Medical Sciences (ADMS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractice. The journal follows the principles and guidelines outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Duties of Authors: 

1. Submit only original work not published or submitted elsewhere
2. Report ethical clearance
3. Avoid plagiarism and provide accurate references 
4. List only the authors who have made significant contribution to research and have approved final manuscript
5. Disclose any conflict of interest and sources of funding

Duties of Editors:

1. Ensure unbiased and timely review process
2. Assess the manuscripts based only on journal's scope and academic merit
3. Maintain confidentiality in review process
4. Take appropriate action in cases of suspected misconduct in accordance with COPE guidelines

Duties of Reviewers:

1. Give constructive reviews within stipulated timeframe
2. Maintain confidentiality and not use unpublished information for personal advantage
3. Declare any conflict of interest and decline review when appropriate
4. Alert editor regarding suspected misconduct or ethical concerns recognized during review process. 

Handling Misconduct

Any reports on published or submitted work will be investigated and if misconduct confirmed then appropriate actions will be taken such as manuscript rejection, retraction, correction, and or notification to authors' institution, in line with COPE recommendations.