Clinical Dentistry. Practitioner Dentists' Quarterly

Included in the Russian Science Citation Index database on the Web of Science platform, is a part of the RISC core

All issues can be found at the Russian Science Library website


ISSN 1811-153X

General information
Preparing for peer-reviewing and publication
Ethics of scientific publications
Indexing and archiving
Manuscript and layout
   Title page
   Authors and affiliation
   Conflict of interest
   Abstract or annotation
   Main text
      Tables and figures
      1. Article in periodicals
      2. Part of the book
      3. Conference proceedings
      4. Scientific report
      5. Dissertation or thesis
Technical requirements and suggestions
   Manuscript format
   Graphics and charts
Copyright Notice

General information

The journal “Clinical dentistry” has been published since 1997.

The journal purpose is to form the specialized medical knowledge modern platform in the dentistry field, combining the achievements of science with clinical practice.

The main journal objectives are to publish relevant scientific and practical information on all modern dentistry parts and to improve the dentist’s skills.

Publication of results clinical and scientific research in dentistry modern, scientific literature reviews, clinical cases presentation provides the journal scientific focus. Previously unpublished Russian scientists and dentists works from various medical organizations, Russian Federation and CIS countries universities, as well as articles by foreign scientists are published in the journal.

The journal also provides various information on equipment and dental materials, on the dental care organization and on events in dentistry.

The journal is the information partner of international dentistry exhibitions; congresses and convention, conferences and symposiums.

“Clinical dentistry” journal presents following sections: Preventive measures, Pediatric dentistry, Restoration, Cariesology, Endodontics, Therapy, Oral mucosal diseases, Periodontics, Anesthesia, Implantology, Surgery, Hygiene, Gnathology, Orthodontics, Prosthodontics, Prosthodontics, Organization, Events.

Publication frequency is 4 times per year.

Preparing for peer-reviewing and publication

The publication possibility is determined by the “Clinical dentistry” journal scientific editor and editorial board. Selected materials are sent for blind peer review and evaluated according to 13 criteria:

  1. The obtained data originality and novelty — for scientific articles, or the presented problem completeness and correctness for reviews.
  2. Topic relevance and studied question compliance with the current state.
  3. Work aims and objectives clarity, their compliance with the presented factual material.
  4. Materials and methods detailed description.
  5. Adequacy of the chosen research methods.
  6. Statistical analysis adequacy.
  7. Results with the set research goals compliance.
  8. Evaluation of the obtained data and the achieved results.
  9. Comparison of results with other authors publications.
  10. References on the research topic significant publications
  11. Findings validity.
  12. Scientific or practical significance of the work results.
  13. The quality and quantity of the abstract.

Articles are reviewed by leading dental specialists-professors, doctors of science, associate professors (on a voluntary basis). The expert’s selection is carried out by the scientific editor, chief editor and members of the editorial board. At least two anonymous blind reviews are made for each article.

The reviewer makes comments on the material content, if any present, and makes recommendations for improvement.

Corrections made by the author to the article should be highlighted in color.

The deadline for authors to make edits is no more than a month.

After receiving a positive review, the editorial board adds the article to the publication plan and sends it to the technical editor, who checks the material for compliance with technical requirements.

Positive reviews are accompanied by the following conclusions:

Revised manuscripts are sent back to the editorial office and reviewed by the scientific editor or reviewer. Negative reviews, as well as unsolvable contradictions are considered at the meeting of the editorial board. After the decision is made, the corresponding message is sent to the author.

The review period is no more than a month.

Ethics of scientific publications

Scientific publications ethics is a system of professional behavior in the relationships between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, and readers in the process of creating, distributing, and using scientific publications norms. The journal “Clinical dentistry” presses for complying with the high publication ethics standards adopted by the international scientific community, developed in the domestic non-profit partnership “Committee on ethics of scientific publications” (, the Committee on publication Ethics (COPE).

The ethical behavior principles are mandatory for all parties involved in the reviewing and publishing a scientific article process: the author(s), reviewers, editor-in-chief, editorial team, editorial board of the journal, and publisher.

Scientific journal editors abide by the professional ethics principles:

  1. The presented data reliability and scientific work significance.
  2. The objectiveness — the manuscript is evaluated on its scientific content-regardless of manuscript authors race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, nationality, citizenship, origin, social status, or political views.
  3. The confidentiality.
  4. The disclosure policy and conflicts of interest. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the manuscript author written consent. Information or ideas obtained during the review process, related to possible benefits, should be kept confidential and not used for self-profit.
    Editors should reject from reviewing manuscripts if conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with manuscript authors or companies, and possibly other organizations associated with the manuscript has place.
  5. Supervision over publications.
    The editor who has provided forcefully arguments about the publication statements or conclusions falsity should inform the publisher (and/or the relevant scientific society) in order to amending, taking out the publication, expressing concern and other relevant statements.
    The editor-in-chief and the publisher, should not leave unanswered claims concerning the reviewed manuscripts or published materials. If a conflict situation is detected, they must take all necessary measures to restore violated of the rights, and if errors are detected- to facilitate the corrections or refutations publication.
  6. Involvement and cooperation in terms of research.
    The editor (or science society) should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints concerning a submitted manuscript or published materials have been presented. Such measures generally include interaction with the manuscript authors and relevant complaint or claim argumentation but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.

Reviewers make author's materials scientific expertise, so their actions must be impartial, regiment by the following principles:

  1. The manuscripts reviewing contributes to make decision about publication and helps the author improve the work quality. Reviewing is necessary in scientific communications and is the foundation of scientific approach.
  2. The reviewer, who does not count himself as specialist in the article field or knows will not be able to give an article review, should notify the editor and reject from the reviewing process.
  3. Not any of the author or co-author of the work, the academic degree applicants' research advisors and/or employees of the department where the author works could be the reviewer.
  4. Any manuscripts received from the editorial board for peer review is a confidential document. It cannot be discussed with other persons, except indicated by the editor-in-chief.
  5. The reviewer should be objective. Personal manuscript author criticism is unacceptable. The reviewer should express opinion clearly, plainly, and argumentatively.
  6. The reviewer, if possible, should find previously published articles relevant to a peer-reviewed article subject and have been not quoted by the author. Any statement in the review about some observation, conclusion, or argument, which were published previously, should be accompanied by an accurate bibliographic reference. The reviewer should also draw the editor-in-chief attention to the reviewed article significant or partial similitude with any other published previously.
  7. The reviewer should not use the information and ideas from the reviewed article for self-profit, maintaining the information and ideas confidentiality.
  8. The reviewer should not accept manuscripts for consideration if there is a conflict of interest caused by competition, collaboration or other relationships with any authors or organizations associated with the article.

The authors submit to the editorial board articles containing new scientific results obtained by the author(s), which have not been published before.

The authors are responsible for the provided information in the manuscript, that suggests the following principles:

  1. Original research report authors should present the performed work's accurate data and an objective its significance discussion. The data underlying the work must be presented accurately. The work should contain sufficient details and bibliographic references for possible result reproduction.
  2. To provide true-to-fact work or research results. Knowingly false or falsified statements are unacceptable and lead to unethical behavior.
  3. The editor-in-chief may request the scientific research original data from the authors due to review process, and the authors should be ready to provide open access to such data, if possible. In any case authors should retain the original materials for a rational period after publication.
  4. To guarantee the research results presented in the manuscript originality and individuality. In the borrowing other authors statements the article should contain appropriate bibliographic references with mandatory author and the original source indication. All articles submitted to the editorial office are checked in the “Antiplagiat” system. Inordinate borrowing and plagiarism in any form, including unformulated quotations, paraphrasing, or assigning the other people's research results rights are unethical and unacceptable actions. The article, which is a compilation of data published before by other authors, without creative revision and personal author's point of view on presented problem would be rejected for publication in the journal.
  5. To recognize the contribution of all persons, influenced the course of research or determined the submitted scientific work nature. In particular, the article should contain bibliographic references to Russian and foreign publications which results were important during the research. Information obtained privately through conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties should not be used without obtaining explicit written permission from its source. All sources must be disclosed. Even if written or illustrative materials from many people are used, permission must be obtained and submitted to the editor.
  6. To submit an original manuscript to the journal, that has not been sent or is not currently under review into another journal and has not previously been published in another journal. Non-observance these principles is considered a outrage of publication ethics and gives ammunition to removing the article from review. The text of the article must be original, so published in the presented form in a periodical for the first time. If the manuscript elements were previously published in another article, the authors must refer to an earlier work and indicate what is the significant difference between the new work and the previous one. Verbatim copying of own work and paraphrasing is unacceptable, previous work results could only be used as a basis for new conclusions.
  7. Publishing an article certain type (for example, translated articles) in more than one journal in some cases is ethical with some stipulations. Authors and editors of interested journals must agree to a secondary publication that necessarily presents the same data and its interpretations as in the first published work. The primary work bibliography should also be presented in the second publication. More information about acceptable forms of secondary (repeated) publications can be found on the page
  8. To guarantee the correct co-authors list composition. The manuscript co-authors list should include all persons who have made a significant intellectual contribution to manuscript concept, structure, or results interpretation. All other participants should be thanked in "Acknowledgements". All co-authors should get acquainted with the final article version, approve it, and agree with its submission for publication. All authors mentioned in the article should be publicly responsible for the content of the article. If the article is a multidisciplinary work, co-authors may be responsible for their personal contribution. It is unacceptable to specify persons who did not participate in the study among the co-authors.
  9. If the work involves using chemical products, procedures or equipment, which using may involve risk, the author should clearly indicate this in the manuscript.
  10. If animals or people as objects of research were involved in work, the authors should make sure that the manuscript indicates that all research stages comply with the legislation and regulations of research organizations and approved by the relevant ethical committees. The manuscript should clearly indicate that informed consent has been obtained from all people who have been the subjects of research. Author must always ensure that privacy rights are respected.
  11. In cause of founding in the article significant errors or inaccuracies at the stage of its review or after its publication, the editorial board of the journal should be immediately notified. Then the co-decision about acknowledgment of mistake and/or correct it as soon as possible should be made by editorial board and author(s). If the editorial board finds out from a third man that the published work contains significant mistakes, the author must immediately correct them, or provide the editorial board with proof of the provided information correctness.
  12. To indicate in manuscripts all sources of funding for the work, declare possible conflicts of interest that may affect the results of the research, their interpretation, as well as the opinions of reviewers. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.

The publisher is responsible for works publishing, which requires following the basic principles:

  1. To work towards of ethical obligations fulfillment by the editorial board, reviewers, and authors in accordance with these requirements.
  2. To support the editorial board in reviewing claims to the published materials ethical aspects and help to cooperate with other journals and/or publishers, if it is promotive of editorial duties acting.
  3. To ensure the confidentiality of any information received from the publication’s authors until its publication.
  4. To be aware of non-profit journal activity and of absence of making a profit purpose.
  5. To be aware the potential profit from advertising do not affect on the editorial board decision about accepting the article for publication.
  6. To be always ready to publish corrections, clarifications, disclaimers, and apologies when it is necessary.
  7. To provide the possibility to editorial board on excluding publications containing the borrowed content and inaccurate data.

Indexing and archiving

The journal “Clinical dentistry” has been included in the Higher Attestation Commission (belongs to the Russia Ministry of Science and Higher Education) base since 2012, indexed in the Russian science citation index (RSCI) since 2014, and is part of the core of the RSCI.

Preparations are underway for joining Scopus.

Abstracts in Russian and English are published on the journal's website, and in 2—4 weeks after publication-in the Russian Science Library (RSL) on the eLibrary platform. The full texts are published on the eLibrary website. Trans 12 months after the publication, full access to the texts on the magazine's website and in the RSL is opened.

There are three types of articles in RSL. Participation in this articles types is included in the scientific rating calculation and the total number of publications of the author: scientific article, (scientific) review and short letter. The “short letter” concept includes clinical cases and other practically valuable articles. Publications that do not undergo the scientific work criteria are assigned the “miscellaneous” type in the RSL, despite the formal characteristics. The decision to assign the article type is made by the editorial board.

Manuscript and layout

When submitting an article to the “Clinical dentistry” journal, the authors should provide a properly executed document in accordance with the following requirements. The document includes:

Title page

The title page all authors should be recapitulated, information about the authors and their affiliation to organizations (affiliation) also should be led. Than the translation of this data into English is followed, and a statement about the conflict of interest (there being or not) is required. Also, on the title page, the correspond author (or the person responsible for the correspondence) contact phone number and e-mail address should be stated.


Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Moscow, Russia

Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia

RUDN University, Moscow, Russia

AuthorID is the author ID in the eLibrary.

To ensure blind review, the title page with information about the authors is deleted when article is sent to reviewers.

The organization name in English should be taken from the official website. Recommendations for translation with examples (available from July 27, 2020) could be found on the page

Authors and affiliation

All persons designated as “authors” should be aligned with the criteria for this concept. The participation of each author in the work should be sufficient for taking responsibility for its content. The right to be called an author is based on:

Participation that consists only in providing funding or selecting material for an article does not justify inclusion in the author's group. The research team overall management is not considered sufficient for authorship. All team members who do not meet the authorship criteria must be listed in the “Acknowledgements” section with their consent.

The order in which the authors will be indicated is determined by their joint decision.

Authors, information about authors and their affiliation to organizations are given in the format:


Author IDs are not published in the printed version, but are indicated on the journal's website (in revision) and sent to the RSL (since No. 2/2020). Each author should be registered in the RSL and ORCID.

After the list of authors follows the numbered list of authors institutions-workplaces, where the article working on was carried out, should follow. The sequence of it is as authors mentioned. The organization's index is its numerical order in this list. If all authors work in the same institution, the index is omitted. If the author worked on the article in several organizations, their indexes are separated by comma, and their positions are separated by semicolons.

Examples (positions and IDs are omitted for brevity):

Belgorod State University, Belgorod, Russia

One or more authors from different organizations, several workplaces:

1 Pushkin City Dental Polyclinic, Pushkino, Russia

2 Central research institute of dental and maxillofacial surgery, Moscow, Russia

3 RUDN University, Moscow, Russia

Conflict of interest

The conflict of interest related to a particular manuscript occurs if one of the participants in the review or publication process — the author, reviewer, or editor — has obligations that could influence their opinion. The most common cause conflicts of interest is financial relationships. But there may be other reasons — personal relationships, scientific rivalry.

Participants in the review and publication process must report about the conflict of interest presence.


The article headline should be short, exhaustive, and unique. There is no necessity for invention juristically and academically correct headline. The article headline should be corresponded to the article abstract (summary) and the context. Also authors should convict by searching in the RSL, that the headline and its translation have been unique for at least the past 10 years.

Abstract or annotation

For scientific articles, this is an extremely brief content summary with the most important numerical data. In the abstract the scientific work aims and objectives, material and methods, results, and conclusions about the possibility of practical application should be described.


From 3 to 5 keywords or phrases should be given.

Main text

Each article should be started with an introductory part, where its scientific novelty is justified, and the work aim purpose is formulated. Then the Material and methods of scientific or clinical work, Results and discussion, Conclusions are followed.

Tables and figures

The same type data (measurement results, comparative analysis, etc.) should be presented in tabular form for clarity and visibility. It is not allowed to repeat data from tables in the main text - only justified citation.

Tables and figures (photos, charts, histograms, graphs, diagrams) should be numbered, and links to them should be inserted in the text. Picture captions should be given in Russian and English. Tables should be numbered separately; figures are numbered separately:

Table 1. The cephalometric characteristics differences statistical significance comparison before and after treatment

Table 2. The cephalometric characteristics parameters statistical significance after treatment with SCA and twin-block

Fig. 1. The interdental space geometry: 1—dentoalveolar papilla; 2—the tooth root; 3—bone tissue; 4—periodontal; 5—the bone height decreasing

Fig. 2. The dentition rows width differences statistical significance comparison before and after treatment with using SCA


All sources of funding external to the authors workplaces should be indicated: grants, sponsorship, donations from organizations and individuals.


In this section all persons who helped the authors in their work on the article or provided material and technical support should be listed.


The list of references should be sorted as cited. In the text, references should be given at the end of the sentence in square brackets. Reference to unpublished works are not allowed.

It is not allowed to cite textbooks, manuals, reference books, dictionaries, collections of articles and other low-circulation publications in scientific work.

The foreign literature sources recommended percent is at least 30%, the literature sources not older than 5 years percent is at least 30% (with the exception of historical reviews), the self – citation percent should be less, than 20%.

For a source that is not in English, at the end, in square brackets the translation should be provided. The translation should be taken from the RSL, or, if it is not available, the correct English version should be taken or done it yourself correctly. It is not allowed to replace the translation with transliteration (except for the author (-s)' names).

At the end of the link, through the tabulation, the quote source should be specified: the eLibrary ID, or PMID (PubMed), or, in cause of the absence the previous ones, the DOI, or link on the Internet.

1. Article in periodicals

Bibliographic description of the journal article should be drown up as described here: article author(s) last name, title of the article, journal title, output year, number, and after the colon - article the first and last pages numbers, and also English translation in square brackets indicating the original language should be presented. Examples:

  1. Измайлова З.М., Семкин В.А., Вагнер В.Д. Современные подходы к экспертизе при проведении операции удаления зуба. — Клиническая стоматология. — 2017; 2 (82): 40—3.
    [Izmailova Z.M., Semkin V.A., Wagner V.D. Modern approaches to the examination during the operation of tooth extraction. — Clinical dentistry. — 2017; 2 (82): 40—3 (In Russ.)].     eLIBRARY ID: 29276234
  2. Wang J.D., Chen X., Frencken J., Du M.Q., Chen Z. Dental caries and first permanent molar pit and fissure morphology in 7- to 8-year-old children in Wuhan, China. — Int J Oral Sci. — 2012; 4 (3): 157—60.     PMID: 22699265
  3. Giustina A., Chanson P., Bronstein M.D., Klibanski A., Lamberts S., Casanueva F.F., Trainer P., Ghigo E., Ho K., Melmed S.; Acromegaly Consensus Group. A consensus on criteria for cure of acromegaly. — J Clin Endocrinol Metab. — 2010; 95 (7): 3141—8.     PMID: 20410227

2. Part of the book

The book bibliographic description should be drown up like described here: author last name and initials, then the book full title, publication place and year, pages numbers related to the article topic (from – to), and also English translation in square brackets indicating the original language should be presented.

In addition to the authors and title, the reference to the book should include the city where it was published, and, if necessary, the country, publisher or institution name, publication year, and page range. The full city and publishing house names should be specified. Certainly the a specific pages (related to the article topic) should be stated; referring to the whole book is possible only in review articles. Examples:

  1. Царев В.Н. Микробиология, вирусология, иммунология. — 2-е издание. — М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа, 2019. — С. 129—140
    [Tsarev V.N. Microbiology, virology, immunology. 2nd edition. — Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2019. — P. 129—140 (In Russ.)].   DOI: 10.33029/9704-5055-0-M VI-2019-I-720
  2. Кузьмина Э.М., Янушевич О.О., Кузьмина И.Н. Стоматологическая заболеваемость населения России. Эпидемиологическое стоматологическое обследование населения России. — М.: МГМСУ, 2019. — С. 13—23
    [Kuzmina E.M. Yanushevich O.O. Kuzmina I.N. Dental morbidity in the Russian population. Epidemiological dental examination of the population of Russia. — Moscow: Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, 2019. — P. 13—23 (In Russ.)].
  3. Morris R. The last sorcerers: the path from alchemy to the periodic table. — Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 2003. — P. 145—158.

If the reference is given to a book chapter, the order is: the chapter's author (-s) last name and initials; the chapter title; then, after the point, “In the book:” or “In:” should be put, and the book author(s) or editor(s) last name and initials should be specified, then the title of the book and output data. Examples:

  1. Царев В.Н. Лабораторная диагностика анаэробной (неклостридиальной) инфекции. — В кн.: Лабинская А.С., Костюкова Н.Н. (ред.) Руководство по медицинской микробиологии. — Кн. 3, т. 1. — М.: Бином, 2013. — С. 439—454
    [Tsarev V.N. Laboratory diagnosis of anaerobic (non-clostridial) infection. — In: Labinskaya A.S., Kostyukova N.N. (eds.) Guide to medical microbiology. — Book 3, vol. 1. — Moscow: Binom, 2013. — P. 439—454 (In Russ.)].
  2. Hirayama H. Digital removable complete denture (DRCD). — In: Tamimi F., Hirayama H. (eds.) Digital Restorative Dentistry. — Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019. — P. 115—136.   DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-15974-0_6

3. Conference proceedings

  1. Абдрашитова А.Б., Салеев Р.А. Анализ ограничения трудоспособности пациентов при заболеваниях челюстно-лицевой области. — В сб. научн. работ IX Международного молодежного конкурса «Молодежь в науке: новые аргументы». — Липецк: Аргумент, 2018. — С. 130—132
    [Abdrashitova A.B., Saleev R.A. Analysis of disability in patients with diseases of the maxillofacial region. — Proceedings of the IX international youth competition “Youth in science: new arguments”. —Lipetsk: Argument, 2018. — P. 130—132 (In Russ.)].
  2. Севбитов А.В., Борисов В.В., Канукоева Е.Ю. Исследование ретенционной способности индивидуальных защитных зубных шин относительно границ их базиса. — Труды международного симпозиума «Надежность и качество». — Пенза, 2015; 2: 363—4
    [Sevbitov A.V., Borisov V.V., Kanukoeva E.Yu. The study of the retention ability of individual protective dental tires relative to the boundaries of their basis. — Proceedings of the international symposium “Reliability and quality”. — 2015; 2: 363—4 (In Russ.)].

4. Scientific report

  1. The World health report: 2004 : Changing history. — Geneva: WHO, 2004. — 169 p.
  2. Oral health surveys basic methods. 5th ed. — Geneva: WHO, 2013. — P. 35—55, 69—81.

5. Dissertation or thesis

The right order is: after the author last name and initials, then the scientific work title, then the publication type (dissertation or abstract) should be specified , then follows the dissertationist scientific degree in abbreviated form, the city and scientific organization name where the PhD viva took place, the defense year, and the number of pages:

  1. Кузьмина И.Н. Профилактика кариеса зубов в различных возрастных группах населения (мониторинг, тактика, методы, программы): автореф. дис. … д.м.н. — М.: МГМСУ, 2013: 54 с.
    [Kuzmina I.N. Prevention of dental caries in different age groups of the population (monitoring, tactics, methods, programs): dissertation abstract. — Moscow: Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, 2013: 54 p. (In Russ.)].
  2. Саливончик М.С. Экспериментально-клиническое обоснование эффективности окончательной обработки съемных конструкций зубных протезов из термопластических полимеров: дис. … к.м.н. — Волгоград, 2015: 135 с
    [Salivonchik M.S. Experimental and clinical substantiation of the effectiveness of the final processing of removable constructions of dentures from thermoplastic polymers: master's thesis. — Volgograd: Volgograd State Medical University, 2015. — 135 p. (In Russ.)].

Technical requirements and requests

Manuscript format

Manuscripts are accepted in docx, doc, or rtf formats. Choose the one that preserves the paragraph splitting and table design.

For the convenience of reviewers and editors, we recommend the following document formatting parameters:

Tables and figures should be numbered, and links to them should be placed in the text.


The original photos should be sent separately from the manuscript, or, if there is a large volume — please send a public link to them on the Internet. If there is a collage of images or labels on top of them - please send the original images by the similarly way. Screenshots should be saved immediately as PNG with lossless compression. Color figures and schemes must be provided at a sufficiently high resolution of 300 dpi or higher. To find out the size, in mm, when printing, divide the length or width of the image in pixels by 11.8:

Image with a 640 pixels width will take only 54 mm when printed.

Graphics and charts

Graphs, charts, and histograms should be embedded in the manuscript so that can be opened separately and accessed by numeric data. Also send the numeric data tables separately. We redraw the info-graphics according to the design and size adopted in the magazine, which is optimal for typesetting and printing. The same requirements are applied to diagrams (block charts): inscriptions and data presented on them should be available in text form.

While sending manuscript authors agrees to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).

The publication materials requirements in the “Clinical dentistry” journal are based on the HAC, RSCI (RSL), Scopus and “Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals” (developed by the medical journal editors International Committee) requirements.

Clinical Dentistry Ltd., 2012—2020.