Privacy Statement

Privacy Statement/Editorial Policies and Ethics Statements

• Peer Review Process

JFOS ensures a double-blind review process in accordance with the Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Initially, Editors evaluate the suitability of all submissions for alignment with JFOS's scope and target audience. Papers deemed appropriate are anonymously sent to at least 2 independent expert reviewers to evaluate the scientific quality. Editors are ultimately responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles.

Editors and Reviewers abstain from decisions in cases involving:

- Papers they authored or were authored by family or research group members.

- Papers related to products or services in which they have a commercial interest, funding involvement, or any other conflict of interest.

Independent editors and peer reviewers are invited to handle these submissions, adhering to the blind review process established by standard review procedures. All Editors and Reviewers must carefully check for any conflict of interest before accepting an assignment.

The Editor conducts the initial review to ensure alignment with the journal's subject matter and editorial standards. Preference is given to articles significant and understandable to the IOFOS audience and readers interested in forensic odonto-stomatology, with clear writing and structured study design. Membership in IOFOS does not influence preliminary selection. IOFOS aims to publish high-quality articles with significant impact. Articles typically take a broad approach.

Reviewers are selected from experts in Forensic Odonto-Stomatology, holding academic degrees and/or positions in teaching or research at universities, academic or governmental institutions, or renowned researchers in the field. Reviewers provide feedback on compliance with the Journal Author’s guidelines, novelty of research, validity of experiments, scientific errors, appropriateness of references, soundness of conclusions, originality, and impact in the field of forensic odonto-stomatology and forensic sciences.

Reviewers provide comments and final recommendations on whether the paper should be accepted without revisions, resubmitted after revisions, or declined. If there is disagreement among Reviewers' recommendations, the Editor may invite additional reviewers and make a decision based on all recommendations collected.

Results of the peer review process are typically available within three months of submission, though additional rounds of review may extend this timeline. If authors are advised to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no assurance that the resubmission will undergo review by the same reviewers or that the revised submission will ultimately be accepted. Different reviewers may be invited for further rounds of revision.

Articles consistently rejected after peer review include those with a commercial tone, poor writing or organization, elementary content, excessive length, lack of novelty, or deviation from the scope of the journal. Such articles will not undergo re-review by JFOS.

 

JFOS Ethics Statements

• Publication Ethics Statement

All submitted manuscripts must adhere to JFOS’s editorial and ethical policies outlined on this page and in the Author Guidelines (hyperlink to the Author Guidelines page under Submission). JFOS implements a stringent peer review process along with strict ethical policies and standards to ensure high-quality scientific works in accordance with the COPE Core Practices and Guidelines. COPE provides guidance on handling conflicts of interest, authorship and contributorship issues, ethical disputes, misconduct allegations, data issues, overlap and plagiarism, and peer review integrity.

JFOS takes publishing ethics seriously, and Editors maintain a zero-tolerance policy for plagiarism, data falsification, or inappropriate authorship credit. It's important to note that JFOS may use software to detect plagiarism to verify the originality of submitted content. If plagiarism is detected with a previously published article, both the authors and the Editor of that article will be informed by JFOS.

The JFOS team manually checks all manuscripts to ensure they comply with the Publication Ethics Statement. If a manuscript does not meet policies or is flagged during the check, an Academic Editor is consulted. In cases of ethical or legal issues, Editors may reject the manuscript before the review process begins. If an ethical issue or conflict with JFOS ethical policies is identified, the acceptance of a manuscript may be revoked, and publication may be withdrawn by the publisher.

JFOS's ethical control methodology aims to uphold the integrity of the literature and ensure the safety of research authors by:

- Proactively preventing potential ethical issues through manual checks of both peer review and manuscripts, promptly detecting and reporting to the Editorial Board.

- Ensuring transparency of decisions and checks by updating and informing all concerned parties when feasible and appropriate.

- Upholding fairness and objectivity in evaluation and providing authors with the opportunity to correct certain issues where possible and time to respond.

- Standardizing the process for investigating ethical issues and policy applicability in accordance with COPE principles and flowcharts.

 

• Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers and Editors

The Editorial Team (Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board members, Reviewers, and all participants in the peer-review process – hyperlinking to the above paragraph on peer review) bears responsibility for ensuring the integrity of the JFOS editorial process.

If any participant in the peer-review process harbors ethical concerns regarding a manuscript under review, final decision, or even post-publication, they should promptly contact the Editor-in-Chief and members of the Editorial Board to initiate an investigation in accordance with the JFOS Comments and Complaints Policy (hyperlinking to the subsequent paragraph) and COPE Guidelines.

Prior to and during peer review, the Editorial Team conducts the following checks:

1. Ensuring the submission aligns with the scope and fields of the journal.

2. Verifying that authors have obtained ethical approval from the regional ethics committee, including protocol number and authorizations for research involving human subjects, animals, or cell lines. In the case of reports on case or case series, ensuring authors have provided consent for the publication of personal data, or a valid reason for its absence.

3. Verifying authors' declaration of the paper's originality and non-replication of previous publications, except for explicit citations, and confirming acceptance of JFOS's copyright policy.

4. Confirming that authors have disclosed research funding and declared any conflicts of interest.

5. Conducting checks for plagiarism, duplicate publications, and obtaining necessary permissions from copyright holders for previously published figures or images included in the manuscript.

6. Performing other compliance, ethics, and research integrity checks in accordance with JFOS policies and guidelines.

In making recommendations or final acceptance decisions on a manuscript, Reviewers and Editors should consider:

1. Disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest, with authors disclosing and addressing conflicts related to their manuscript or study before submission.

2. Objective discussion of research findings' significance if the manuscript presents research findings.

3. Presentation of materials and methods in sufficient detail for other researchers to replicate the work.

4. Provision of timely and substantive feedback and comments by reviewers to facilitate an objective decision on the submission.

 

• Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

One of JFOS's primary objectives is to ensure transparency in the peer review and publication process. All individuals involved in the peer review process are expected to carefully consider and disclose any potential conflicts of interest when participating in the review, decision-making, and publication of an article. If a Reviewer or Editor believes that the potential existence of a conflict of interest, or multiple conflicts of interest, will not impact the peer review or decision-making process, they must first disclose the concern to the Editorial Team. Following a thorough evaluation, a decision will be made regarding whether to exclude the individual to uphold the integrity of the peer review process.

 

• Definition of Potential Conflicts of Interest involving the Editorial Team in the peer review process:

- Personal or Academic Conflicts: Editors, Reviewers, and Editorial Team Members should abstain from participating in any phase of the review process for submitted manuscripts that they authored directly or by their family members, professional friends, colleagues at the same institution, or members of the same research group. Reviewers or editors should refrain from involvement in the review or decision-making of manuscripts submitted by authors who currently hold a mentor or mentee role or have had such a relationship in the past, or by those with whom they have ongoing collaborations. Although the peer review process is blind to reviewers, if a reviewer suspects such a conflict of interest, they must disclose it to be excluded from the process.

- Financial or Professional Conflicts: Financial conflicts encompass any professional or business relationships, financial or business interests, or other competing interests that could potentially introduce bias into the review process. Neither reviewers nor editors should receive professional or personal benefits, salary, board membership, funding, grants, honoraria, or hold any other interest in a company whose product is discussed in the article, or intellectual property rights such as patents, royalties, and copyrights as a result of their contribution. Reviewers and editors should refrain from participating in the review or decision-making of manuscripts where conflicts of interest could introduce bias.

- Other Conflicts: Any other conflicts of interest, whether real or potentially perceived, that could influence the outcome of the peer review and decision-making process should be disclosed. Reviewers and editors should assess the merit, originality, and suitability of the manuscript for the journal in accordance with JFOS editorial guidelines. Discrimination based on race, color, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religion, country of origin, physical ability, or socioeconomic status is not tolerated in JFOS journals. Reviewers and editors must disclose personal biases that could impact peer review.

In the event of a conflict of interest, alternative reviewers and/or editors will be sought. If an editor submits a manuscript to the journal, their submission will be handled by other editors who do not have a conflict of interest.

All editors and reviewers are required to declare no conflicts of interest, and a disclaimer will be included with each article.

 

• Confidentiality and Anonymity

Reviewers and Editors are committed to maintaining the confidentiality of the manuscript, including the abstract. Reviewers should notify the Editors if they intend for a student or colleague to conduct the review on their behalf.

JFOS employs double-blind peer review, requiring Reviewers to refrain from disclosing their identities to authors, both in comments and in the metadata of reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format.

 

• Comments and Complaints

Readers who have concerns or complaints about published papers should initially contact the corresponding author to attempt direct resolution before reaching out to the Editorial Team (Contact Section - metterei link ipertestuale).

In instances where contacting the authors is not feasible, if authors are unresponsive, or if concerns remain unresolved, the Editorial Team may be contacted. They will collaborate with the complainant, author/s, and Editors-in-Chief or Editorial Board members to investigate, address, or resolve any concerns or complaints.

Complaints, comments, or update requests related to scholarly validity, ethical or legal aspects of the paper or its review process will be thoroughly investigated as necessary, with final approval by the Editor-in-Chief for update requests pertaining to published papers. For ethical concerns, decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board members, with support from the Editorial Team to uphold core principles of publication ethics as outlined by COPE. Other individuals and institutions may be consulted as needed, including academic authorities or experts in the field, with legal counsel sought if the complaint involves legal implications.

Personal comments or criticisms will not be entertained, and all complaints, including anonymous ones, will be investigated. Complainants may request that their complaint be handled confidentially, and the Editorial Office, Editors-in-Chief, or other Editorial Board members will endeavor to do so as appropriate and in line with internal procedures.

Decisions regarding Corrections, Comments and Replies, Expressions of Concern, or Retractions resulting from an investigation are made by Editors-in-Chief or Editorial Board members and communicated to authors. Updates must adhere to our policy on Updating Published Papers.

If a complaint is deemed unsubstantiated, further communication will only be considered upon presentation of additional information evidencing concerns. Complainants may not receive updates on the status of an investigation until a final decision is reached, though they will be notified if an update is published. The Editorial Team is not obligated to provide further detail, and communication may cease if it is deemed discourteous or disrespectful. Readers with complaints or concerns should understand that investigations take time to conduct.

When raising concerns with the Editorial Office, please use the contact details provided in the Contact Section, along with details about the paper, the complaint, its scholarly, scientific, or academic validity, a summary of the main points and any other issues, details of any prior correspondence with the authors, and a statement clarifying any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.

 

• Updating Published Papers

JFOS acknowledges its responsibility to rectify scientifically relevant errors or ethical issues brought to our attention. To ensure transparency for our authors and readers, we provide the following options for updates to our published papers:

- Direct Update: Updates are made directly to the publication when feasible and warranted by reasonable requests. Upon approval, a revised version of the paper will be updated and republished in the most current issue of the journal and on our website. Subsequently, all relevant indexing databases will be notified to ensure that their versions are also revised.

- Corrections with Distinction between Minor and Major Corrections:

  - Minor corrections address issues that do not impact the scientific content of an article but necessitate an updated version.

  - Major corrections aim to rectify issues and errors that could affect the scientific interpretation of an article.

If Minor and Major corrections are approved, they will be accompanied by the addition of a footnote in the PDF version and a "correction statement" in the backmatter of the website version, when feasible. Conversely, the paper will be updated and republished in the most current issue of the journal on our website as a separate publication of a corrected version of the paper, titled "Correction to..." followed by the original title of the manuscript. This notification alerts all readers to a significant change in the paper, with relevant indexing databases also being notified to ensure their versions are updated accordingly.

 

• Retractions

Occasionally, a paper may require retraction from the body of research literature. This could result from inadvertent errors during the research process, serious ethical violations, data fabrication, extensive plagiarism, or other factors. Such articles jeopardize the integrity of scientific records and necessitate retraction.

JFOS adheres to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for retractions.

When a Retraction is issued, the original publication is annotated with a "RETRACTED" watermark but remains accessible on the journal's website for archival purposes. However, retracted articles should not be cited or utilized for further research, as they cannot be deemed reliable. Retractions are published with the same authorship and affiliation as the retracted paper, ensuring that both the notice and the original paper can be easily located by readers within indexing databases. The Retraction notice is also included in the current issue of the journal. Partial Retractions may be issued in cases where only certain aspects of the findings are incorrect.

A paper will only be completely removed from JFOS's website and relevant indexing databases under exceptional circumstances, such as when its continued presence online would constitute an illegal act or pose a significant risk of harm.

 

• Comments and Replies

If a reader rises concerns about the reported results or methods employed in a specific paper, they should reach out to the journal's Editorial Office. If deemed warranted, a Comment may be submitted for potential publication. Comments constitute brief letters to the editors from readers seeking to publicly question a particular paper.

Once a Comment undergoes approval for further peer review, the Editorial Team will then contact the authors of the paper in question and extend an invitation for them to prepare a Reply to the Comment. The Reply affords the authors the opportunity to publicly address the concerns raised by the reader. If the reader's complaints are substantiated, and the authors fail to adequately address the concerns, a Correction of the original paper may be issued, or the paper may be retracted entirely.

Should authors fail to furnish a response by the provided deadline or opt not to respond, the Comment may be published alongside a note explaining the absence of a Reply.

Both Comments and Replies will be subject to review in accordance with the standard review procedure to ensure that:

- The Comment addresses significant aspects of the original paper without morphing into essentially a new paper.

- The Reply directly addresses any concerns raised without evasiveness.

- The tone of both publications is fitting for a scientific journal.

While Comments may critique the paper, they should refrain from criticizing the authors' work. Additionally, Comments should avoid reiterating previously published disagreements. Only one round of Comment and Reply will be facilitated when the discussion originates from the same reader/s.

 

• Author Name Change Policy

Occasionally, authors may desire to alter their name post-publication. Typically, such requests are declined by the Editorial Team unless a valid and well-justified request is unanimously approved by all authors involved.