All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship. The entitlement to authorship should be based on all of the following criteria: (1) substantial contributions to conceptions and design, execution or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) drafting the article or revising it for important intellectual content; (3) final approval of the version to be published. Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship. All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgements. The order of authorship should be a joint decision of the co-authors. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for part of the content or the whole.
Corresponding author must agree that above has been confirmed by all authors when submitting a manuscript.
By submitting your manuscript to the journal it is understood that this it is an original manuscript and is unpublished work and is not under consideration elsewhere.
Conflict of Interest:
The Compendium of Oral Science’s policy requires that each author reveal any financial interests or connections, direct or indirect, or other situations that might raise the question of bias in the work reported or the conclusions, implications, or opinions stated including pertinent commercial or other sources of funding for the individual author(s) or for the associated department(s) or organization(s), personal relationships, or direct academic competition.
As an integral part of the submission process, Corresponding authors are required to confirm whether they or their co-authors have any conflicts of interest to declare, and to provide details of these.
Any changes made to the list of conflicts after the paper is accepted must be submitted in writing, signed by the appropriate authors (that is, the corresponding author and the author for whom the conflict exists), to the Compendium of Oral Science Editorial Office. Publication of manuscripts will be withheld until all such written approvals are received. Compendium of Oral Science accepts no responsibility for such changes.
a) Animal experiments
When reporting animal experiments authors should indicate whether the institution’s, national research council’s, or any other law on the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
b) Human subjects
When reporting on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration (1964, amended most recently in 2008) of the World Medical Association. Manuscripts should include a statement that the patient’s written consent was obtained and any information, including illustrations, should be as anonymized as far as possible. Authors should indicate that the design of the work has been approved by local ethical committees or that it conforms to standards currently applied in the country of origin. The name of the authorizing body should be stated in the paper.
Authors should indicate that the design of clinical trial study has been approved by local ethical committees / appropriate authority or that it conforms to standards currently applied in the country of origin. The name of the authorizing body should be stated in the paper. The clinical trial registration number and name of the trial register will then be published with the paper.
All sources of funding should be declared in the Acknowledgements. If a private/commercial sponsor supported the research, authors are advised to describe the role of the study sponsor (s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication. If the funding source had no such involvement, this should be stated.
Details of all funding sources for the work in question should be given in a separate section entitled 'Funding'. This should appear before the 'Acknowledgements' section.
The following rules should be followed:
~ The sentence should begin: ‘This work was supported by …’
~ The full official funding agency name should be given, i.e. ‘National Institutes of Health’, not ‘NIH’ ( Grant numbers should be given in brackets as follows: ‘[grant number xxxx]’
~ Multiple grant numbers should be separated by a comma as follows: ‘[grant numbers xxxx, yyyy]’
~ Agencies should be separated by a semi-colon (plus ‘and’ before the last funding agency)
~ Where individuals need to be specified for certain sources of funding the following text should be added after the relevant agency or grant number 'to [author initials]'.
An example is given here: ‘This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health [AA123456 to C.S., BB765432 to M.H.]; and the Alcohol & Education Research Council [hfygr667789].’
Evaluation of manuscripts
Submitted manuscripts are subject to peer review and are expected to meet standards of academic excellence. Peer-reviewers identities will remain anonymous to the authors. The Editor-in-Chief's decision regarding publication is based on the recommendation of the reports of reviewers, which will, at the Editors' discretion, be transmitted to the authors.
Authors may suggest the names and addresses of a few potential reviewers. The Editors and Associate Editors will be guided but not necessarily bound by these suggestions.