About the Journal


Focus and Scope

Update Dental College Journal (UpDCJ) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. It is published biannually in April and October each year by Update Dental College (UpDC). It publishes original articles based on laboratory work, fieldwork, clinical trials and various other studies by scientific means related to disciplines of health and Biomedical science conducted in any Medical and Dental institutes in Bangladesh and other countries. It also accepts review articles, meta-analyses, case reports, short communications and letters to the editor.

UpDCJ is an Open Access Journal. It maintains the criteria of Journal Publishing Practices and Standards (JPPS) framework provides detailed assessment criteria for the quality of publishing practices. The journal follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJMJE) guidelines recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals.

Articles in Update Dental College Journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License CC BY-4.0.This license permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Publication Frequency

The journal is published biannually in April and October.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Peer Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to journals are privileged communications that are authors’ private, confidential property, and authors may be harmed by premature disclosure of any or all of a manuscript’s details.

We guide our Reviewers therefore should keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly confidential. Reviewers are prohibited to publicly discuss authors’ work and must not appropriate authors’ ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not retain the manuscript for their personal use and should destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting their reviews.

Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to requests to review and to submit reviews within the time agreed. Reviewers’ comments should be constructive, honest, and polite.

Reviewers should declare their conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists.

Stepwise Peer Review Process of UpDCJ:

  1. Primary review (7 working days)
  • Check full manuscript to evaluate writing criteria according to our author guideline missing or not. (https://www.banglajol.info/index.php/UpDCJ/about/submissions)
  • Check English grammar by the software Grammarly
  • Plagiarism detection and report generation in pdf by the Plagiarism detector software (Plagiarism Detector)                                                                                        
  1. The author should respond within 7 working days after receiving the primary review report. The plagiarism or similarity index should be equal or less than 10%.
  2. The modified manuscript according to the primary report (If necessary), has been sent to our External review body of subject specialists selected by the Executive Editor and Assistant editor

External Peer review process:

Among the all submitted manuscripts, Mini-review, Meta-analysis, Clinical Trial, Visual Experiment and Original Research Article are peer-reviewed, Case report.  One exception is that Letter to the Editor/ editorial is not peer-reviewed and usually, it doesn’t contain abstract.

Manuscript for External Review

If any manuscript passes the first step (Primary review) and meets the Criteria for Publication, then the manuscript is sent to external reviewers for comment/advices. The whole process is double-blinded. Editor in chief maintain this with confidentiality. The manuscript is initially sent to one external reviewer, but others may be invited if required.

Selection of Reviewers

Reviewer selection is the critical and important part to the publication process. The choice of selection is based on several factors, including a) expertise, b) reputation, c) capability of giving recommendations, d) giving enough time to review and e) our own previous experience of a reviewer's characteristics.

General and ethical guideline to reviewer for Review manuscript:

  1. When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the manuscript – this will help you determine whether you wish to do the review. You should try to respond to every peer review invitation you receive.
  2. If you feel the paper is outside your area of expertise or you are unable to devote the necessary time, please let the editorial office know as soon as possible so that they can invite an alternative reviewer.
  3. If you intend to decline the invitation, you could consider nominating a colleague for the editor to contact directly.
  4. The reviewer gets usually 1-2 weeks’ time for the review.
  5. The reviewer must have to send the review comment through updcj mailing address: updcj@hotmail.com
  6. We guide our respected reviewers to send the review comments as in track change mood in Microsoft document. So that the review comments become specific and easy to understand. Occasionally we trained our reviewer to maintain this system. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7tmsWN6uH0)

Usually, as a minimum, UpDCJ ask reviewers to check the following:

  1. The article’s premise is well-founded
  2. The hypotheses are properly addressed
    The conclusions are supported by the data
  3. Subjectively assess whether the article is suitable for publication or not.
  4. Detailed edits are always appreciated, it make our job easier.
  5. Try to avoid pithy comments like, "This is an inferior manuscript. Reject" or, “Great work. Publish”, with no further explanation.
  6. Reviewer should adequately explain or support their judgment. Even a positive one-liner such as, "Nice article, should be published as is…………………………………………….
  7. Research can be a small world. This means many reviewers will know the author, either because their name is revealed (through a single-blind or open peer review) or out of familiarity with their work. You can certainly give a fair assessment of an article that is written by a friend or competitor, but:
  • If there’s a significant conflict of interest you should reveal this to the editor
  • If the conflict of interest causes a large positive or negative bias, then it is better to decline the review request
  • Avoid personal judgment and criticism at all times – judge the article. This is more likely to be well received by the author and lead to better work by them.
  • Every editor will appreciate honesty about conflicts of interest, even if they then have to look for a replacement reviewer.
  1. As a reviewer, you have a duty of confidentiality to the journal.
  2. Remember that the editor is there to ensure a smooth peer review, so don't be shy about asking the editor to help supply missing information, such as a reference you cannot locate. The editor will normally request the items from the author, who will generally want to respond quickly. The author may also expand their Supporting Information file as a result, which in turn improves the article.

Timing for review:

Update Dental College Journal (UpDCJ) is committed to giving rapid editorial decisions and publications. To achieve the goal, an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. Therefore, we request the reviewers to respond promptly within 3 days to agree to do the review process. If a reviewer does not agree/respond to review a manuscript, then we request another reviewer. Once a reviewer agrees to review, the maximum allocated time period of review is 2 weeks. A soft reminder email is sent to the reviewer when the allocated time is over. This process performs well.

Editorial Decision The Chief editor takes the final decision based on the reviewers' comments. The decision may be any one of the followings:

  1. a) Accept for Publication, with or without any minor editorial revision
  2. b) Inform the corresponding author to revise the Manuscript to address the specific concerns before a final decision is reached. Submission of revised manuscript does not ensure the acceptance
  3. c) Reject, but inform the corresponding author that further write-up might justify a Resubmission
  4. d) Decline Submission, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems


Editor, editorial board members, authors and reviewers keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process on submitted manuscripts. Even identities of the reviewer are not disclosed to the corresponding author. In addition, reviewers maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript.


Update Dental College