Ethical Standards and Procedures

Termedia Publishing House is committed to upholding standards of ethical behaviour at all stages of the publication process. We follow closely the industry associations, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), that set standards and provide guidelines for best practices in order to meet these requirements. Authors and editors, have ethical obligations with regard to the publication of the results of research. According to our publishing policy, manuscripts not conforming to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki should not be accepted for publication.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently and are based on the manuscript's scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, clarity, and relevance to the journal scope. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by the publisher, the owner or sponsoring society, advertisers, commercial partners, institutional interests, or personal relationships.

The Editorial Office, Editor-in-Chief, handling editors, reviewers, and publisher must preserve the confidentiality and integrity of the editorial process. Any person involved in editorial evaluation or peer review must disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest and must withdraw from the process when impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

Required Ethical and Publication Statements

The following statements must be included at the end of the manuscript, before the reference list, where applicable:

• Author Contributions
• Funding
• Institutional Review Board Statement
• Informed Consent Statement
• Clinical Trial Registration
• Data Availability Statement
• Acknowledgments
• Conflicts of Interest
• AI Use Statement

Duties and Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for submitting original, accurate, complete, and ethically conducted work that complies with the journal's Instructions for Authors and Ethical Standards and Procedures. Authors must ensure that the manuscript has not been published previously and is not under consideration by another journal.

Authors are responsible for the integrity of the submitted content, including text, data, tables, figures, images, references, and supplementary materials. Authors must obtain permission for the use of copyrighted material where required and must properly acknowledge all sources.

Authors must disclose all financial, personal, institutional, academic, or professional relationships that could be perceived as influencing the submitted work. Authors must also disclose all sources of funding and the role of the funder, where applicable.

Authors are expected to cooperate with the editorial and peer-review process, respond to editorial and reviewer comments in a timely and respectful manner, and provide additional information, source data, ethics approval documents, consent forms, or other documentation when requested by the Editorial Office.

Authors must promptly inform the Editorial Office if they discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their submitted or published work. When appropriate, authors are expected to cooperate in issuing corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions.

Authors may withdraw a manuscript before acceptance by submitting a written request through the editorial system or to the Editorial Office. The request should include the reason for withdrawal and confirmation from the corresponding author that all authors agree with the withdrawal.

Authorship and Contributors

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made a substantial intellectual contribution to the submitted work. Each author should meet all of the following criteria: substantial contribution to the conception or design of the study, acquisition of data, analysis, or interpretation of data; drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; approval of the final version to be published; and agreement to be accountable for the accuracy and integrity of the work.

Guest authorship, honorary authorship, and ghost authorship are not acceptable. Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet the authorship criteria, including those providing technical, administrative, language, statistical, or material support, should be listed in the Acknowledgments section with their permission.

All manuscripts with more than one author must include an Author Contributions statement. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all listed authors meet the authorship criteria, approve the submitted version, and agree with the order of authorship.

Review Process

All submitted manuscripts are initially assessed by the Editorial Office for completeness, relevance to the journal scope, ethical compliance, and adherence to the journal requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to authors or rejected before external review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are sent for external peer review. The journal applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other during review. Each manuscript is usually evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited when needed.

The final editorial decision is based on the reviewers' comments, scientific quality, originality, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal scope, and adherence to the instructions for authors. The Editor may accept, request revision, reject, or seek additional review before making a final decision.

The peer review policy applies to all scholarly manuscripts submitted to the journal, including manuscripts submitted by editors, Editorial Board members, Guest Editors, or editorial staff. Such manuscripts are handled under the editorial conflict-of-interest procedure described below. The conflicted person is excluded from editorial assessment, reviewer selection, access to confidential peer-review materials, editorial discussion, and the final decision.

The journal keeps the peer-review process confidential. Reviewer identities, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and internal editorial discussions must not be disclosed outside the editorial process, except where disclosure is required by law, by ethical investigation, or by a transparent editorial policy approved by the journal.

Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers should agree to review only manuscripts that fall within their area of expertise and that they can assess in a timely and objective manner. Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest and should decline the review if such a conflict could affect their impartiality.

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and related materials as confidential documents. Unpublished data, ideas, images, or interpretations obtained during peer review must not be used for personal advantage or shared with others without permission from the Editor.

Reviewer comments should be constructive, evidence-based, respectful, and focused on improving the scientific quality and clarity of the manuscript. Reviewers should alert the Editor to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, image manipulation, ethical problems, or substantial overlap with previously published work.

If a reviewer identifies that the Editor-in-Chief, a handling editor, an Editorial Board member, or another person involved in the editorial process is an author or has a possible conflict of interest in relation to the manuscript, the reviewer should notify the Editorial Office. The manuscript must then be checked to ensure that the conflicted person is not involved in the review or decision-making process.

Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for ensuring a fair, confidential, timely, and independent editorial process. Editorial decisions should be based on the scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal scope, without discrimination based on authors' personal characteristics, institutional affiliation, nationality, or beliefs.

Editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and peer review materials. Editors should not use unpublished information from submitted manuscripts for their own research or personal advantage. Editors must declare and manage conflicts of interest and, where appropriate, assign the manuscript to another qualified editor.

Editors are responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers, considering reviewers' expertise and potential conflicts of interest, and for taking appropriate action when ethical concerns, complaints, appeals, corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions arise. Such cases should be handled in accordance with COPE guidance and the journal's ethical procedures.

Editorial Conflicts of Interest and Submissions by Editors

A conflict of interest may arise when an editor has a financial, institutional, personal, professional, academic, or competitive relationship with the authors, reviewers, funders, subject matter, or outcome of a manuscript. Editors must not handle manuscripts when their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

Examples of editorial conflicts include, but are not limited to, manuscripts submitted by the editor, close collaborators, recent co-authors, current or recent colleagues from the same institution, supervisors, supervisees, students, family members, persons with a close personal relationship, or authors with whom the editor has a direct financial, academic, or professional conflict.

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Section Editors, Editorial Board members, Guest Editors, editorial staff, or publisher representatives are subject to the same editorial standards, plagiarism screening, ethical checks, and external double-blind peer review as all other submissions.

The conflicted editor must be fully recused from the editorial process. This means that the conflicted editor must not perform the initial assessment, select or suggest reviewers, access reviewer reports or confidential editorial correspondence, participate in editorial discussions, or influence the final decision.

If the Editor-in-Chief is an author or co-author of a submitted manuscript, the manuscript must be assigned to an independent handling editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors, their institutions, the reviewers, or the subject of the manuscript. The independent handling editor may be an Associate Editor, Section Editor, Editorial Board member, or an external expert appointed by the publisher or Editorial Office.

In such cases, the Editor-in-Chief has access only to information available to any author and does not participate in confidential peer review, editorial discussions, or the final editorial decision. The final decision is made independently by the assigned handling editor.

Reviewer selection in conflicted-editor cases must be especially cautious. Reviewers must be independent of the authors and the handling editor, must declare potential conflicts of interest, and should decline the review if their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

When appropriate, the published article may include a declaration that the manuscript was handled under the journal's editorial conflict-of-interest procedure. The journal may retain internal records documenting the recusal and independent handling of the manuscript.

Special Issues and Guest Editors

Guest Editors must follow the same ethical standards as regular editors. Guest Editors must not handle manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest. Manuscripts submitted by Guest Editors to their own Special Issue must be handled by an independent editor appointed by the Editor-in-Chief, publisher, or Editorial Office, and must undergo the journal's standard external peer review process.

Institutional Review Board Statement

For studies involving human participants, human data, human tissues, human biological material, animals, or animal-derived material, authors must provide the full name of the ethics committee or institutional review board, approval number, and date of approval.

For studies involving human participants, the following format is recommended:

Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee/Institutional Review Board of [Name of Institution] (approval number: [XXX], date of approval: [date]).

For studies involving animals, authors must confirm that the study was approved by the appropriate ethics committee and conducted in accordance with applicable institutional, national, and international regulations.

If ethical approval was not required, authors must provide a clear explanation and, where possible, a formal exemption or waiver from the appropriate ethics committee.

Recommended format:

Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because [reason].

The Editorial Office may request documentation confirming ethics approval, exemption, or informed consent.

Research Involving Human Participants and Vulnerable Populations

Research involving human participants, human data, human tissues, or human biological material must comply with the Declaration of Helsinki, applicable legal requirements, institutional regulations, and relevant ethical standards. Authors must ensure that risks to participants are minimized and justified by the potential scientific or clinical value of the study.

Additional safeguards are required for research involving vulnerable populations, including but not limited to minors, persons unable to provide informed consent, persons with impaired decision-making capacity, dependent individuals, institutionalized persons, economically or socially disadvantaged groups, and other participants whose ability to give voluntary consent may be limited.

The inclusion of vulnerable participants must be scientifically justified in the manuscript and approved by the appropriate ethics committee or institutional review board. Where required, consent must be obtained from a legal guardian or authorized representative, and assent from the participant should be obtained whenever appropriate. Authors must describe measures taken to protect privacy, confidentiality, dignity, and welfare of vulnerable participants.

Informed Consent Statement

For studies involving human participants, human data, or human tissues, authors must include an informed consent statement.

Recommended format:

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

If informed consent was waived, the reason must be clearly explained.

If the manuscript contains identifiable patient information, clinical images, photographs, videos, radiographs, or case details, written informed consent for publication must be confirmed.

Recommended format:

Informed Consent Statement: Written informed consent for publication was obtained from the patient/participant.

For anonymous surveys and questionnaire studies, authors should state how participants were informed about the aim of the study, voluntary participation, anonymity or confidentiality, data use, and any possible risks.

Identifying details, including names, initials, dates of birth, hospital numbers, facial features, photographs, videos, radiographs, genetic profiles, or other information that could identify a participant or patient, must not be published unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and written informed consent for publication has been obtained. Masking only the eye region in photographs may be insufficient to ensure anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, authors must ensure that such alterations do not distort the scientific meaning of the case or data.

Clinical Trial Registration

Journal of Stomatology requires prospective registration of clinical trials in a publicly accessible clinical trial registry, in accordance with ICMJE recommendations.

A clinical trial is any study in which participants are prospectively assigned to an intervention, treatment, procedure, diagnostic method, preventive measure, or comparison group to evaluate the effect on a health-related outcome.

Clinical trials must be registered before or at the time of enrolment of the first participant. Ethics committee approval alone is not equivalent to clinical trial registration.

The name of the registry, registration number, and registration date must be provided in the Abstract and in the Materials and Methods section.

Recommended format:

Clinical Trial Registration: This clinical trial was registered in [Registry Name] under registration number [XXX], registration date: [date].

Accepted registries include, but are not limited to:

ClinicalTrials.gov: https://clinicaltrials.gov/
ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System: https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/
WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform: https://trialsearch.who.int/
WHO ICTRP Primary Registries: https://www.who.int/tools/clinical-trials-registry-platform/network/primary-registries
ISRCTN Registry: https://www.isrctn.com/
EU Clinical Trials Information System: https://euclinicaltrials.eu/
EU Clinical Trials Register: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/

Observational studies, including cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies, usually do not require clinical trial registration unless participants are prospectively assigned to a health-related intervention.

If a clinical trial was not prospectively registered, authors must explain the reason in the Materials and Methods section. The Editorial Office may reject clinical trial manuscripts that do not meet registration requirements.

Reporting Guidelines

Authors should follow the appropriate reporting guideline for the study design. Where applicable, a completed checklist should be submitted with the manuscript.

Recommended guidelines include:

CONSORT for randomized clinical trials: https://www.consort-spirit.org/
STROBE for observational studies: https://www.strobe-statement.org/
PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: https://www.prisma-statement.org/
ARRIVE for animal studies: https://arriveguidelines.org/
EQUATOR Network for other reporting guidelines: https://www.equator-network.org/

For systematic reviews and scoping reviews, protocol registration is recommended. Authors should provide the registry name and registration number, if available.

Recommended registries for review protocols include:

PROSPERO: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/
Open Science Framework Registries: https://osf.io/registries
INPLASY: https://inplasy.com/
protocols.io: https://www.protocols.io/

Data Availability Statement

All manuscripts must include a statement describing whether and how the data supporting the findings are available.

Recommended examples:

Data Availability Statement: The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Data Availability Statement: The data are not publicly available due to ethical, legal, or privacy restrictions.

Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

If data are deposited in a public repository, authors should provide the repository name, DOI, accession number, or direct link.

Data Sharing Policy

Journal of Stomatology supports transparency, reproducibility, and responsible data sharing. Authors are encouraged to make available the research data underlying their findings whenever this is ethically, legally, and practically possible.

Research data may include raw data, processed data, protocols, methods, statistical analysis plans, algorithms, anonymized datasets, images, or other materials necessary to verify, reproduce, or reuse the findings.

Data may be shared through public repositories, institutional repositories, supplementary materials, or upon reasonable request to the corresponding author. If data cannot be shared because of ethical, legal, privacy, confidentiality, commercial, or other restrictions, authors must clearly state the reason in the Data Availability Statement.

Data involving human participants must be anonymized or de-identified where appropriate, and data sharing must comply with informed consent, ethics committee approval, institutional policies, and applicable data protection regulations.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose any financial, institutional, personal, or professional relationships that could be perceived as influencing the study.

If there are no conflicts, please state:

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

If the study was funded, authors must also state whether the funder had any role in study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of results, manuscript preparation, or the decision to submit the article.

Advertising Policy

Advertising, sponsored content, commercial notices, or other promotional materials, if accepted by the journal or publisher, must be clearly identifiable and kept separate from editorial content. Acceptance of advertising does not imply endorsement by the Journal of Stomatology, the Editorial Board, or the Polish Dental Association.

Advertising must not influence editorial decisions, peer review, article selection, or the presentation of scientific content. Advertisers, sponsors, and commercial partners have no role in decisions regarding submitted manuscripts.

The Editorial Office and publisher reserve the right to reject or remove advertising that is misleading, inaccurate, unlawful, unethical, incompatible with the journal's scientific mission, or likely to compromise the independence or reputation of the journal.

Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Artificial intelligence tools and large language models cannot be listed as authors.

Authors must disclose the use of artificial intelligence tools if they were used in manuscript preparation, translation, language editing, image generation, data processing, statistical analysis, study design, or interpretation of results.

Recommended format:

AI Use Statement: During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [tool name/version] for [purpose]. The authors reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the final content of the manuscript.

If no such tools were used, authors may state:

AI Use Statement: No artificial intelligence tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript.

Scientific Misconduct

Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism includes copying text, ideas, data, images, tables, or other material from published or unpublished sources without proper attribution, as well as close paraphrasing, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate publication, and reuse of figures or data without permission where required.

Manuscripts may be screened for plagiarism and textual overlap before or during peer review. When plagiarism or substantial unattributed overlap is suspected, the Editorial Office may request an explanation from the authors, reject the manuscript, contact the authors' institution, or take post-publication action, including correction, expression of concern, or retraction, as appropriate.

Data, Image and Figure Integrity

Authors must present data, images, radiographs, charts, and figures accurately and without fabrication, falsification, selective omission, or misleading manipulation. Adjustments to images are acceptable only when they are applied to the entire image, do not obscure or eliminate information, and do not misrepresent the original data.

The Editorial Office may request raw data, original image files, ethics approval documents, consent forms, laboratory records, or other supporting documentation when concerns arise before or after publication. Failure to provide a satisfactory explanation or documentation may result in rejection, correction, expression of concern, retraction, or notification of the authors' institution, funder, or ethics committee.

All submitted manuscripts may be checked with plagiarism detection software. If ethical concerns are identified before publication, the Editorial Office may request explanations, source data, ethics approval documents, consent forms, or other relevant documentation from the authors.

If misconduct or serious error is suspected after publication, the Editorial Office will investigate the case in accordance with COPE guidance. Depending on the outcome, the journal may publish a correction, issue an expression of concern, retract the article, or take another appropriate editorial action.

Authors are expected to cooperate with the Editorial Office during any investigation. When necessary, the Editorial Office may contact the authors’ institution, funder, or relevant ethics committee.

Complaints and Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned appeal to the Editorial Office. Appeals should identify specific concerns, such as a possible factual error, misunderstanding, conflict of interest, procedural irregularity, or overlooked evidence. Disagreement with an editorial judgement alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for appeal.

Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or by an independent editor when the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest. The journal may consult the original handling editor, additional reviewers, an ethics advisor, the publisher, or COPE guidance when appropriate. The outcome of an appeal may be to uphold the original decision, request further review, invite revision, or take another appropriate editorial action. The appeal decision is normally final.

Complaints about editorial conduct, peer review, publication ethics, conflicts of interest, or published content should be submitted to the Editorial Office with sufficient detail and supporting evidence. Complaints will be handled confidentially, fairly, and without retaliation. When a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it should be handled by the publisher, Editorial Office, or another independent editor.

Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern

Journal of Stomatology is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. When necessary, the journal may publish corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions.

A correction may be issued when an article contains an error that does not invalidate the main findings.

Post-publication Corrections/Erratum

Authors, readers, reviewers, or editors may report potential errors in published articles. When a significant error is confirmed after publication but the main findings remain valid, the journal may publish a correction or erratum. The notice should clearly identify the article concerned, describe the corrected information, and be linked to the original article. The original article should remain part of the scientific record, with a clear indication that a correction has been issued.

Process for Corrections/Errata:

Potential errors may be reported to the journal by authors, readers, reviewers, editors, academic or institutional sponsors, publishers, or other relevant parties. The Editorial Office will assess the report and, where necessary, contact the authors and request supporting documentation or clarification.

When a correction or erratum is warranted, the notice will be published in a citable form, linked to the original article, and will clearly describe the nature of the error and the corrected information. Corrections should not obscure the original publication record and should preserve transparency of the scholarly record.

An expression of concern may be issued when serious doubts arise but the investigation is not yet complete.

A retraction may be issued when the findings are unreliable due to misconduct, major error, unethical research, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other serious breaches of publication ethics.

Retractions

A retraction notice should be published when an article is retracted. The notice should be clearly linked to the retracted article, identify the reason for the retraction, and indicate who initiated the retraction where appropriate. Retracted articles should not normally be removed from the journal website, but should be clearly marked as retracted to preserve the transparency of the scholarly record. Removal may be considered only in exceptional circumstances, such as legal requirements, serious privacy risks, or risks of harm.

Articles may be retracted when the findings are unreliable due to major error, miscalculation, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, redundant publication, unauthorized use of data or material, copyright or legal violations, unethical research, lack of required informed consent or ethics approval, compromised or manipulated peer review, or undisclosed conflicts of interest that could have influenced the interpretation of the work.

Process for Retractions:

Potential grounds for retraction may be reported to the journal by authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions, funders, publishers, or other relevant parties. The Editorial Office will assess the concern in accordance with COPE guidance and may request explanations, source data, ethics documents, consent forms, reviewer information, or other documentation necessary to evaluate the case.

A retraction notice will be published promptly when retraction is warranted. The notice will be freely available, clearly linked to the retracted article, and will identify the retracted article by title and authors. Where appropriate, the notice will include the date of retraction, the party responsible for the decision, and an objective explanation of the reason for retraction.

Retracted articles should remain accessible as part of the scholarly record and should be clearly marked as retracted. Removal of an article from the journal website may be considered only in exceptional circumstances, such as legal requirements, serious privacy risks, or risks of harm.

Post-publication ethical concerns may be raised by authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions, funders, or other parties. The journal will assess such concerns in accordance with COPE guidance, seek responses from the authors where appropriate, and take proportionate action to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Version Control and Updating of Policies

The journal may update these ethical standards and procedures when publication ethics guidance, legal requirements, indexing requirements, or editorial practice changes. The current version should be clearly available on the journal website and should be consistent with the Instructions for Authors and the journal's peer review policy.