Submission Process
Our Dermatology Online
Our Dermatology Online follows a structured editorial and peer-review process designed to ensure that submitted manuscripts are evaluated fairly, consistently, and according to the journal’s editorial and ethical standards.
Authors should read the Instructions for Authors and the relevant journal policies before submitting a manuscript.
1. Manuscript Preparation
Before submission, authors should ensure that the manuscript:
- falls within the journal’s Aims and Scope;
- complies with the relevant requirements for the selected article type;
- has not been published previously, unless appropriately disclosed;
- is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal;
- contains complete and accurate author information;
- includes all required declarations;
- complies with applicable ethical requirements;
- contains appropriate patient consent where required;
- complies with the journal’s requirements concerning conflicts of interest, funding, authorship and AI use.
The manuscript should be prepared in accordance with the journal’s Instructions for Authors.
2. Submission
Manuscripts should be submitted by email to:
The corresponding author should submit the manuscript on behalf of all authors and should ensure that all co-authors have approved the submitted version.
The submission email should include:
- the manuscript;
- the title page;
- figures and tables, where applicable;
- supplementary material, where applicable;
- relevant ethical approval information;
- patient consent documentation, where applicable;
- declarations concerning conflicts of interest and funding;
- any other information requested by the editorial office.
The corresponding author should provide a valid email address for further communication with the editorial office.
The editorial office may request additional documents or information if the submission is incomplete.
3. Initial Editorial Screening
After submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment.
The editorial team considers, among other factors:
- suitability for the journal’s scope;
- basic scientific and clinical relevance;
- originality;
- completeness of the submission;
- compliance with the Instructions for Authors;
- ethical requirements;
- patient confidentiality;
- conflicts of interest;
- potential plagiarism or inappropriate text overlap.
A manuscript may be rejected at this stage if it is clearly unsuitable for the journal or does not meet the journal’s basic editorial requirements.
Editorial screening does not constitute external peer review.
4. Plagiarism and Similarity Screening
Submitted manuscripts may be screened using Plagramme to identify substantial text similarity and possible plagiarism.
Similarity screening may be performed before external peer review and, where appropriate, at other stages of the editorial process.
A similarity report is an editorial screening tool and is not, by itself, evidence of plagiarism or research misconduct.
Where substantial or potentially inappropriate overlap is identified, the editorial office may contact the authors for clarification or undertake further investigation in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
5. AI and Automated Tools
The use of artificial intelligence and automated tools is subject to the journal’s AI Policy.
Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity and ethical compliance of their manuscripts.
AI tools must not be listed as authors.
Where disclosure is required, authors must disclose relevant use of AI tools in accordance with the journal’s AI Policy.
The journal may use appropriate technological tools, including text-similarity screening, as part of its editorial workflow.
6. External Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment may be sent for external peer review.
Our Dermatology Online uses a double-blind peer-review process.
The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential during the review process.
A manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise.
Reviewers are selected according to the subject matter and expertise relevant to the manuscript.
The journal seeks to avoid conflicts of interest in the selection of reviewers.
7. Reviewer Reports
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to relevant scientific, clinical, methodological and ethical considerations.
Depending on the manuscript type, reviewers may consider:
- originality;
- relevance;
- scientific quality;
- methodology;
- clarity of presentation;
- interpretation of results;
- references;
- figures and tables;
- ethical considerations;
- patient confidentiality;
- overall contribution to the field.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory.
The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor.
8. Editorial Decision
Following editorial assessment and, where applicable, peer review, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
The decision may take into account reviewer recommendations, but the editorial decision is not determined solely by a numerical vote or recommendation.
The journal may request additional review where necessary.
9. Revision
When revision is requested, authors should submit:
- a revised version of the manuscript; and
- a response to the reviewers’ comments.
Authors should respond clearly and individually to substantive reviewer comments and indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript.
The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the nature of the revisions.
Failure to submit a revision within a reasonable period may result in the manuscript being considered withdrawn.
10. Acceptance
When a manuscript satisfies the editorial and peer-review requirements, the Editor may accept it for publication.
Acceptance is based on the editorial evaluation of the manuscript and is not conditional upon the purchase of any optional paid service.
Payment for an optional service does not guarantee acceptance or publication.
11. Production and Publication
After acceptance, the manuscript enters the publication process.
The editorial office may perform necessary technical and formatting checks before publication.
Authors may be contacted if clarification or correction of publication files is required.
The final published article will be made available in accordance with the journal’s Open Access Policy and Copyright & Licensing terms.
12. Optional Fast-Track Processing
The journal may offer an optional Fast-Track Processing service subject to the conditions and fees published on the Fees page.
Fast-track processing concerns the speed of editorial handling only.
It does not:
- guarantee acceptance;
- guarantee favourable peer-review reports;
- bypass peer review;
- alter editorial standards;
- influence the final editorial decision.
Authors who do not request fast-track processing receive the journal’s standard editorial handling.
13. Optional Technical Corrections
The journal may offer technical or formatting correction services requested by authors after submission or at another stage of the publication process, where applicable.
Such services are optional.
They do not influence:
- editorial assessment;
- peer review;
- acceptance;
- rejection;
- scientific evaluation.
Applicable conditions and charges are described on the Fees page.
14. Appeals
Authors who believe that an editorial decision was materially affected by a significant factual or procedural error may submit an appeal.
Appeals are handled according to the journal’s Complaints and Appeals policy.
Appeals should provide specific reasons and relevant supporting information.
Appeals should be sent to:
odermatol@yahoo.com; contact@odermatol.com
15. Post-Publication Corrections
Authors should notify the editorial office promptly if they identify a significant error in a published article.
Depending on the nature and significance of the error, the journal may publish an appropriate correction, editorial notice, Expression of Concern, or retraction.
Further information is available in the journal’s Corrections and Retractions policy.
Submission Workflow
The standard editorial workflow can be summarised as:
Manuscript preparation
↓
Submission by email to odermatol@yahoo.com
↓
Initial editorial screening
↓
Plagramme / similarity screening
↓
Editorial assessment
↓
Double-blind peer review
↓
At least two independent reviewers, where external review is undertaken
↓
Editorial decision
↓
Revision, if required
↓
Final editorial decision
↓
Acceptance
↓
Production and publication
Contact
Questions concerning manuscript submission should be directed to:
odermatol@yahoo.com; contact@odermatol.com
Authors should consult the Instructions for Authors and relevant journal policies before contacting the editorial office.
Comments are closed.