The BJ-BABS operates a double-blind peer-review process. This means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from each other throughout the review process. It aims to reduce bias, as the reviewers will not be influenced by the identities of the authors, and vice versa.
Initial manuscript evaluation: The Editor-in-Chief first evaluates all manuscripts. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal.
Reviewer selection: Reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our database is constantly being updated.
Reviewer reports: Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates already published work, and whether or not the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication. Reviewers will also assess the novelty and significance of the manuscript.
Final decision: The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding the manuscript based on the reviewers’ evaluations and editors recommendations.
Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Potential reviewers are contacted individually by the editorial office and asked to return comments within a specified timeframe, usually 2 weeks. Reviewers are provided with guidelines to follow during the review process. These guidelines emphasize the need for reviewers to be objective and constructive in their reviews, and to declare any conflicts of interest prior to agreeing to review a submission.
If the decision is for major or minor revision, the authors are expected to submit the revised version within the time frame specified by the Editor. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or to new reviewers for evaluation, at the Editor’s discretion.
Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief ([email protected]) and should provide detailed reasons for the appeal.