This journal uses a double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. Each paper will review by two reviewers. New submissions are assigned to a handling Editor who is responsible for its evaluation. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision regarding publication is based on the reports of referees and the handling Editor’s recommendation, which will, at the Editor-in-Chief’s discretion, be transmitted to the authors.
Upon the first submission, this reviewing process takes about 4 to 6 weeks. After reading the peer reviewer's report, the editor will decide one of the
3- Ask the authors to revise and resubmit the manuscript after responding to the peer reviewers’ feedback. following four options:
1- Reject the manuscript.
2- Accept the manuscript
Authors will be informed of the editorial decision, on average within a month of submission of a Regular Paper. The status of your manuscript can be checked via email. The following information must be provided during the submission stage: • Names, institutions, and email addresses of all the co-authors. • Evidence of database submission • Approval of citation of any personal communications.
General Guidelines for Reviewers:
Manuscripts submitted to BBJ journals are reviewed by at least two experts, who can be volunteer reviewers or reviewers suggested by the academic editor during the preliminary check. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the editor on whether a manuscript should be accepted, requires revisions, or should be rejected.
Reviewers are invited to: accept or decline any invitations as soon as possible, suggest alternative reviewers if an invitation must be declined and request a deadline extension as soon as possible in case more time is required to provide a comprehensive report.
Review Reports:
We have listed some general instructions regarding the review report for your consideration below.
To begin with, please consider the following guidelines:
Read the whole article as well as the supplementary material, if there is any, paying close attention to the figures, tables, data, and methods.
Your report should critically analyze the article as whole but also specific sections and the key concepts presented in the article.
Please ensure your comments are detailed so that the authors may correctly understand and address the points you raise.
Reviewers must not recommend citation of work by themselves, close colleagues, another author, or the journal when it is not clearly necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript under review.
Reviewers must not recommend excessive citation of their work, another author’s work or articles from the journal where the manuscript was submitted as a means of increasing the citations of the reviewer/authors/journal. You can provide references as needed, but they must clearly improve the quality of the manuscript under review.
Please maintain a neutral tone and focus on providing constructive criticism that will help the authors improve their work. Derogatory comments will not be tolerated.
For further guidance on writing a critical review, please refer to the following documents:
COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics. Available online.
Hames, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2007.
Writing a journal article review. Australian National University: Canberra, Australia, 2010. Available online.
Golash-Boza, T. How to write a peer review for an academic journal: Six steps from start to finish. Available online.
Review reports should contain the following:
A summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions and The full peer-review process including editorial workflow can be understood through the following flow chart:
