Phase 1: Initial Editorial Screening

Each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening to assess its suitability, completeness, ethical compliance, and alignment with the journal’s requirements before being sent for external peer review:

• Journal Scope Match: Verifies that the manuscript falls cleanly within the operational aims and scope of BJHS.
• Submission Guidelines: Confirms the submission strictly follows the author guidelines and template requirements.
• Basic Academic Quality: Meets baseline requirements for structural clarity, scientific presentation, and logical formatting.
• Ethical Prerequisites: Evaluates inclusion of IRB/Ethics committee approvals, informed consent statements, or clinical trial registrations.
• Similarity Screening: Manuscripts undergo plagiarism and similarity screening using automated detection tools to identify potential text overlap.
• File Completeness: Confirms all figures, tables, supplementary files, reference arrays, and disclosures are properly provided.

Phase 2: Independent External Review

Manuscripts that successfully complete initial editorial screening are evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with domain expertise. Additional reviewers may be assigned when specialized evaluation is required. Reviewers are selected after careful consideration of expertise and potential conflicts of interest, and all reviews are handled with strict confidentiality.

• Originality: Scientific novelty, research contribution, and relevance to health sciences.
• Methodology Rigor: Appropriateness of study design, sampling methodology, and analytical validity.
• Data & Results: Accuracy, tracking completeness, and transparent data presentation.
• Ethical Clearance: Valid ethics approvals, patient consent, and participant privacy safeguards.
• Interpretation Logic: Conclusions directly supported by observed experimental or clinical findings.
• Literature Tracking: Depth, accuracy, and recency of cited scholarly literature.
• Technical Presentation: Structural clarity, language flow, logical layout, and overall readability.

Reviewer Selection Criteria

BJHS selects peer reviewers based on academic qualifications, subject expertise, research experience, and publication record in the relevant discipline. Reviewers are chosen according to the following principles:

• Reviewers must possess demonstrated academic or professional expertise related to the subject area.
• Reviewers should have an active research record and recognized scholarly contributions.
• Reviewers must have no personal, professional, institutional, or financial conflicts of interest with the authors.
• Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations in a timely manner.
• Reviewer selection decisions are made independently by the editorial team.

Reviewer Conflict of Interest Policy

BJHS requires reviewers to disclose any potential conflicts of interest prior to accepting an evaluation assignment. A reviewer will not be assigned if:

• The reviewer has recently collaborated or co-authored publications with any author.
• The reviewer belongs to the same institution or organization as any author.
• The reviewer has personal, financial, or competitive relationships that may compromise impartial assessment.
• The reviewer is unable to provide an independent and objective evaluation.

Peer Review Timeline

BJHS aims to complete initial screening and peer-review processes within a efficient timeframe. Actual processing times may vary based on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, and required revision cycles:

• Initial Editorial Screening: Scope, formatting, and ethics screening upon initial submission.
• External Peer Review: Independent double-anonymized review by external subject experts.
• Author Revision Period: Allocated time frame based on the extent of reviewer recommendations.
• Final Editorial Decision: Concluded after re-evaluating revised manuscripts and point-by-point response logs.

Revision & Resubmission Protocols

When revisions are requested, authors receive anonymized peer-review feedback. Resubmitted revision packages must include:

Editorial Decision-Making Process

The Editor-in-Chief and assigned Handling Editors make final determinations by considering:

• External peer reviewer reports and constructive recommendations.
• Scientific originality, methodological quality, and study validity.
• Adherence to research ethics and journal standards.
• Completeness and quality of author responses to reviewer comments.
• Alignment with the scope and editorial standards of BJHS.

Reviewer reports provide essential guidance, but the final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or authorized Handling Editor. Editors may request additional reviewer evaluations if needed to ensure fair assessment.

Final Editorial Determinations

The final editorial determination regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection falls into one of five standard categories:

Reviewer Safeguards & AI Confidentiality

Reviewers are strictly required to maintain absolute confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts. Reviewers must not share, copy, or use unpublished manuscript content, data, or findings for personal advantage or outside the official evaluation process.

Editorial Independence & Governance

BJHS maintains complete editorial independence. Editorial evaluations operate independently of commercial, financial, or organizational influences. Peer-review policies undergo periodic review to align with COPE principles, international publishing ethics, and evolving digital integrity standards.