Peer Review
Peer Review Policy
Editorial Evaluation
All submissions received by the Annals of Dentistry, University of Malaya are first evaluated by the editorial team to determine their relevance to the journal's scope, scientific merit, ethical compliance, and adherence to the journal's submission requirements. Manuscripts that do not satisfy these preliminary criteria may be declined prior to external review.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted to the Annals of Dentistry, University of Malaya are treated with strict confidentiality throughout the editorial and peer-review process. Information relating to submitted manuscripts will only be disclosed to the corresponding author, reviewers, editors, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Independent Peer Review
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are subjected to a rigorous peer-review process. The journal employs a double-blind review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed to promote impartial and objective evaluation.
Reviewer Selection
Each manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of two independent experts with appropriate knowledge and experience in the relevant field of dentistry or oral health sciences. While authors may suggest suitable reviewers during submission, the appointment of reviewers remains solely at the discretion of the Editorial Board.
Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers are invited to assess the originality, methodological quality, scientific validity, clinical relevance, and overall contribution of the manuscript. Based on their evaluations, reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection of the submission.
Review Outcomes
Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editorial Board may reach one of the following decisions:
• Accept without revision;
• Accept subject to minor revisions;
• Reconsider after major revisions; or
• Reject.
Where reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the Editorial Board may seek the opinion of an additional reviewer. The final editorial decision will be made after careful consideration of all reviewer reports and editorial assessments.
Revision Process
Authors may be requested to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewer comments. Revised submissions should be accompanied by a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed. Depending on the extent of the revisions, the manuscript may undergo further review before a final decision is reached.
Production and Proof Approval
Following acceptance, manuscripts proceed through copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading stages to ensure accuracy, clarity, and consistency with the journal's publication standards. Authors will receive proofs for final verification before publication.
Review and Publication Timeline
The journal strives to provide authors with a timely review process. Under normal circumstances, an initial editorial decision is communicated within approximately twelve to sixteen weeks of submission. Actual processing times may vary according to reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript and the extent of revisions required.
Communication with Authors
Corresponding authors will be notified of all editorial decisions through official journal correspondence. Once the publication process has been completed, authors will receive confirmation regarding the issue and publication details of their accepted article.
