Dental and Medical Problems

Dent. Med. Probl.
Index Copernicus (ICV 2019) – 118.76
MNiSW – 20
Average rejection rate (2020) – 88.71%
Average waiting time at editors (to acceptance) – 17.93 days
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Ethics policies

Ethical considerations

When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
Journal Dental and Medical Problems has adopted and applies the rules of publication ethics in accordance with COPE guidelines (Committee on Publication Ethics).

Please read the information regarding transparency and best practice in publishing standards:

Procedures securing the authenticity of publications

The Editors actively combat all forms of scientific misconduct and the lack of respect for good manners in science ( An example of such practice is a situation when the Author’s contribution was minimal or non-existent but he or she is still listed as the co-author (guest authorship) or if he or she contributed significantly but without disclosing their involvement (ghostwriting). To combat such practices the Editors have taken the following measures:

  • all co-authors should provide a written statement about the originality of the manuscript;
  • all co-authors should disclose their contribution to the manuscript;
  • the originality of the manuscript is assessed by two (2) or more expert reviewers, a language editor (including a native speaker), and the editor-in-chief;
  • the manuscript is verified by a web-based plagiarism program so as to detect any form of scientific misconduct.

The Autor(s) are also required to disclose the sources of the funding of the study, and the input of groups and other subjects (financial disclosure). In case of suspected plagiarism or other scientific misconduct, the Editors ask the first or the last Author of the manuscript for clarifications, at the same time putting the preparation of the manuscript on hold. The Editors decide the final fate of the manuscript. The Editors may notify the employer of the first or the last Author if they suspect committing scientific misconduct, or they may refer the matter for further clarification directly to the appropriate ethics committee. If someone outside the editorial team raised the suspicion of scientific misconduct, that person shall be notified of the action taken. The fact that the manuscript has been published does not mean that plagiarism or scientific misconduct have not been committed.