Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
- Receipt: Immediate through the OJS system.
- Desk review: 2 to 5 days.
- Proceeds for external peer review or immediate rejection decision: 5 days at the latest.
- The first review (notification of rejection, revisions required, or acceptance): maximum of one month.
- Publication: once a work has been accepted, the editors will inform the volume and number of the journal where the article will be published and the publication date.
2) Peer Review
The editorial committee will consider the manuscript for publication in the journal. The Editor will initially assess all manuscript regarding their suitability for the journal focus and scope and its originality (using originality detection services). It will be considered if the manuscript adapts to the coverage of the journal and satisfies the publication standards. In this case, it will undergo an external peer review.
Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. They will review anonymously (double-blind peer review) the manuscript, in which the reviewer's name is not disclosed to the authors and vice-versa. If the two reviewers have differing opinions, the manuscripts will be sent to a third reviewer. With the report of the two or three reviewers, the Editor will make a final decision on their acceptance, new authors' revisions, or final rejection of the article. The Editor's decision is final. Specifically for the Current Opinion section, the section editors will review anonymously (double-blind) the manuscripts, without independent referees' review.
In general, once the external reports have been viewed, the decision regarding the acceptance-rejection of the work by the editorial staff of the BJMB is based upon the following factors: a) originality: totally original, valuable information, repetition of known findings; b) topicality and novelty; c) relevance: applicability of the findings to solve specific problems; d) significance: advancement of scientific knowledge; e) scientific reliability and validity: proven methodological quality; f) presentation: well written, organized (logic consistency and material presentation). In no case, the authors will know the identity of the reviewers, just as the reviewers will not know the identity of the authors. The protocol used by the journal reviewers is made public as an annex to these standards. During the submission process, authors may have to suggest three suitable independent referees (with their contact details), but the choice of referee rests with the Editors.
All manuscripts will be submitted to an external peer review. Reviewed works that may be considered for publication following modification must be returned within less than 20 days, both in the case of minor or major corrections being requested. The authors will receive the reviewers’ evaluation reports, anonymously, so that they can (where appropriate), make the respective corrections or replies.
The acceptance, revisions required, or rejection of the manuscript will be notified within one month at the latest following the acceptance for review by the journal. Editors and editorial board members are not involved in editorial processes or decisions about their own work. Reviewers are asked to disclose potential conflicts of interest when they are invited to review a paper and when they submit their review.
The author(s) of accepted articles will receive the printing proofs for correction in the OJS system. They must correct and return them to the editorial staff of the journal within 72 hours after their receipt. Only minimum corrections can be made to the content of the original manuscript.
Once a work has been accepted, the number in which the article will be published and the date of publication will be indicated.