An Orapuh Review (Orap Rev) is a standalone, systematic synthesis of current scholarly literature focused on a specific topic within oral health, public health, or their intersection. Its primary objective is to provide an updated, authoritative overview of the existing body of knowledge in that field.
Writing an Orapuh Review requires identifying relevant academic publications (such as peer-reviewed journal articles and scholarly books), critically appraising their content, and presenting a coherent synthesis of the evidence. A high-quality Orapuh Review goes beyond mere summarization; it critically analyzes, integrates, and evaluates disparate sources to deliver a clear, comprehensive picture of the current state of research.
Purpose
The main purpose of an Orapuh Review is to develop condensed, timely, and high-quality oral and public health "micro-texts." These resources serve as concise, rigorous learning materials and academic references for educators, researchers, and students.
Authorship
Registration to author an Orapuh Review is open to qualified scholars and researchers within the niche disciplines covered by the journal.
1. Team Composition: Each review must be co-authored by a minimum of two (2) scholars to encourage collaboration and peer oversight.
2. Commitment to Updates: Authors must commit to the periodic review and updating of their published papers to ensure the literature remains relevant, comprehensive, and up to date over time.
3. Author Obligations: Prospective authors must be willing to dedicate the necessary time, effort, and scholarly expertise required to bring the review to completion.
Publishing
All completed and accepted Orapuh Reviews are published in the Orapuh Journal (Orap J).
Training
To maintain high methodological standards, Orapuh provides training programs for both current and prospective authors. This training guides writers through every phase of preparing, structuring, and submitting an Orapuh Review.
Author Support
Authors receive continuous technical and editorial guidance throughout the writing, submission, and post-publication update stages. Support is provided by the Orap J editorial team and members of the Orapuh College of Scholars.
Review Period
The timeline for completing a review depends on the review team's expertise and time availability.
a) Minimum Timeframe: A review may be completed in as little as two (2) weeks.
b) Maximum Timeframe: Orapuh requires review teams to complete and submit their manuscript within a maximum period of one (1) month from topic approval.
Termination of a Review
The editorial staff reserves the right to terminate a review project if the team fails to submit within the stipulated one-month period or if the submitted manuscript requires extensive structural editing and re-writing.
Because termination reflects a loss of editorial resources, prospective authors must carefully select their co-authors and confirm that they possess the necessary time and domain expertise before initiating a project.
Citation & Reference Standards
To maintain high currency and academic rigor, all Orapuh Reviews must adhere to the following citation criteria:
I. Source Recency: All cited literature must have been published within the last five (5) years.
II. Citation Volume: A manuscript must contain no fewer than 50 in-text citations and corresponding reference entries.
III. Referencing Style: Every citation and reference entry must adhere strictly to the American Psychological Association (APA) 7th Edition formatting style.
Funding & Financial Policies
A. Volunteer Basis: Authors contribute their time and expertise on a voluntary basis. Authors receive no financial compensation for writing, nor are they charged any fees to publish in Orap J.
B. External Grants: Authors are permitted to secure external funding or research grants to support their review. If external funding is obtained, authors must notify Orapuh and submit a detailed report on the allocation and disbursement of those funds.
C. Commissioned Reviews: In exceptional circumstances, Orapuh may directly commission a review on a priority topic and provide a stipend to support the project.
Peer Review
All manuscripts submitted to Orap J undergo rigorous evaluation before publication.
i. Review Model: Orap J uses a double-blind peer-review process where the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation.
ii. Reviewer Count: Every manuscript is independently assessed by two (2) external peer reviewers.
Expected Peer-Review Timeframes
The peer-review process typically takes a minimum of two (2) weeks:
1) Invitation Acceptance: Reviewers are expected to accept or decline a review request within one (1) week of receipt.
2) Review Evaluation: Once accepted, the reviewer must complete and submit their evaluation within one (1) week.
Workflow Overview
Phase 1: Preparation
1. Identify qualified and dependable co-authors.
2. Define a clear, focused review topic within oral or public health.
3. Register the topic with the journal editorial team.
4. Delimit the scope, objectives, and parameters of the review.
Phase 2: Actual Review Execution
5. Conduct systematic literature searches across relevant databases.
6. Critically appraise and select eligible sources (published within the last 5 years).
7. Develop a coherent thematic structure and outline.
8. Draft the literature review manuscript.
9. Thoroughly proofread and revise the content.
10. Format the manuscript using the official Orapuh Review Template.
11. Submit the completed manuscript via the online system.
Phase 3: Editorial Workflow & Production
12. Initial editorial screening and manuscript checks.
13. Double-blind peer review (2 independent reviewers).
14. Author revisions and copyediting.
15. Formatting and preparation of publishable galley proofs.
16. Final proofreading by editorial staff and authors.
17. Final production, DOI assignment, and online publication.
Structure of the Review
Every Orapuh Review manuscript must include the following structural sections:
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Main Body (divided into thematic sections using clear sub-headings)
4. Conclusion
5. References
Detailed Section Guidelines
1. Abstract
The Abstract is a concise standalone summary of the entire manuscript and should be written after the main review has been fully drafted.
Content Requirements:
a) Background & Motivation: State the underlying rationale and importance of the chosen topic.
b) Problem Statement: Define the specific knowledge gap or clinical/public health problem being addressed.
c) Methodological Summary: Summarize the types, scope, and range of literature included in the synthesis.
d) Key Findings: Highlight the primary insights and synthesized conclusions drawn from the literature.
e) Concluding Statement: Provide a final summary statement reflecting the broader implications of the findings.
f) Word Count: Must not exceed 350 words.
2. Introduction
The Introduction establishes the conceptual foundation of the review and provides essential context for the reader.
Key Guiding Questions:
i. What is the existing state of knowledge in this field?
ii. What is the current status quo or clinical baseline regarding this issue?
iii. What key trends, advances, or debates are evident in recent literature?
Core Functions:
a. Define key concepts and contextualize the subject area.
b. Clearly state the objective and rationale for conducting the review.
c. Detail the analytical criteria used to compare and contrast literature.
d. Outline the organizational framework (sequence) of the manuscript.
e. State the scope of the review, explicitly justifying the inclusion or exclusion of specific subsets of literature where necessary.
3. Main Body (Thematic Analysis)
The Main Body offers an in-depth analysis and synthesis of the retrieved literature.
I. Organization: Must be structured logically into Themes and Sub-Themes. Authors should establish these thematic headings after conducting a thorough analysis of the gathered evidence.
II. Coverage: The selected themes and sub-themes must comprehensively cover the available evidence, perspectives, and developments within the defined topic scope.
4. Conclusion
The Conclusion synthesizes the core insights emerging directly from the findings discussed in the main body.
i. Scope: It must reflect the findings accurately without introducing new, unexamined literature.
ii. Broader Context: Authors should contextualize their findings within the broader framework of oral and public health, outlining practical implications, clinical applications, or areas requiring further research.
5. References
a) All references must be published within the last 5 years.
b) The manuscript must contain at least 50 valid in-text citations and corresponding entries.
c) Every citation must strictly follow APA 7th Edition mechanics.
Note: Authors are strongly advised to download and study the official Orapuh Review System documentation and training materials to familiarize themselves with the required review methodologies prior to drafting.
How to Begin an Orapuh Review
To initiate a new review project, complete the following steps:
i. Register an Account: Create an author account on the official Orapuh Journal portal.
ii. Review Guidelines: Read these author guidelines carefully to ensure compliance with all submission criteria.
iii. Register Topic: Register your proposed review title online here.
iv. Obtain Template: Request and download the official Orapuh Review Template from the Editorial Office ([email protected]).
v. Format & Submit: Format your drafted manuscript into the template and submit it through the online journal management system.
vi. Editorial Inquiries: [email protected]
Publication Fees & Deadlines
a. Publication Fees: Orap J charges no Article Processing Charges (APCs) and no submission fees. Published articles are freely accessible without subscription paywalls.
b. Submission Deadlines: There are no submission deadlines. The journal accepts manuscripts on a rolling basis throughout the year.
c. Publishing Model: Orap J operates on a continuous, publish-as-you-go release model.
Editorial Policies & Standards
Authors must review and comply with all journal policies prior to submission:
1. Editorial Policies: Available on the journal's official website.
2. Publication Ethics: Authors must adhere to international ethical standards regarding authorship, plagiarism, data integrity, and conflict of interest disclosures. See Orapuh Journal's Publication Ethics and Research Transparency Policy.
3. Health Research Transparency: Authors are required to follow global health research reporting standards to ensure clarity, openness, and reproducibility. See Orapuh Journal's Publication Ethics and Research Transparency Policy.
The Publication Journey
Manuscript Received ──► Editorial Screening ──► Double-Blind Peer Review (2 Reviewers)
│
DOI Assigned & Archived ◄── Galley Proofs ◄── Copyediting ◄── Decision & Revision
Submission: Manuscript received via the online journal management system.
Initial Editorial Review: Manuscript is screened for completeness, scope alignment, plagiarism, and technical adherence to guidelines.
Double-Blind Peer Review: Eligible files are sent to two (2) independent peer reviewers.
Author Revisions: Authors revise the manuscript based on reviewer feedback and re-upload the revised files.
Editorial Decision: The editorial board renders a decision (Accept, Reject, or Send for Further Peer Review). Authors are notified immediately.
Final Editorial Screening: Accepted manuscripts undergo a final quality check by the editorial team.
Copyediting: Text is refined for grammar, syntax, clarity, and formatting consistency.
Production: Publishable PDF and digital formats are generated.
DOI Assignment: A unique Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is registered for the article.
Publication: The article is published online on the Orap J portal.
Indexing & Distribution: The article is made immediately available on the journal website and integrated with third-party indexing services.
Archiving: The final publication is deposited into digital preservation repositories, including LOCKSS and the PKP Preservation Network (PKP PN), to guarantee permanent access.
Authors receive automated status notifications at each major decision point and can track their manuscript's status in real time via their journal account dashboard.
Contact & Editorial Office
For questions, support, or inquiries at any stage of the writing or review process, contact the editorial team:
I. Physical Address: F. Gaye R., Sukuta-Jamisa, Greater Banjul Area, The Gambia.
II. Email: [email protected]
III. WhatsApp: +220-87-723-0480
