Official Journal
Believers Journal of
Health Sciences
P-ISSN 3117-3284
E-ISSN 3117-3292
Quick Navigation
Volumes & Issues Quick Submit Call for Papers Editorial Board Search Research
Information
For Readers For Authors For Librarians
Keywords
Health Sciences Medical Research Clinical Research Nursing Science Biomedical Sciences Pharmaceutical Sciences Healthcare Innovation Kinesiology International Health Journal Health Informatics

Peer Review Policy

P-ISSN: 3117-3284 E-ISSN: 3117-3292
Peer Review Policy

Believers Journal of Health Sciences (BJHS) follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to support fairness, confidentiality, high academic quality, and completely independent evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Under this model, the identities of authors are hidden from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are hidden from authors throughout the entire evaluation cycle.

Phase 1: Initial Editorial Screening

Each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial internal desk evaluation across six core criteria fields before advancing to peer panels:

  • Journal Scope Match: Verifies that the text falls cleanly within the operational aims and scope of BJHS.
  • Submission Guidelines: Confirms the package precisely tracks mandated Author Guidelines rules.
  • Basic Academic Quality: Meets baseline requirements for structural clarity, presentation, and logic flows.
  • Ethical Prerequisites: Evaluates inclusion of IRB approvals, informed consent statements, or trial IDs.
  • Similarity Screening: Algorithmic processing to scan for potential plagiarism or text recycling.
  • File Completeness: Confirms all datasets, figures, tables, reference arrays, and declarations are logged.
Non-compliant files are returned instantly for correction or declined before external review.
Phase 2: Independent External Review

Manuscripts passing initial desk gates are dispatched to a minimum of two independent external peer reviewers with deep subject expertise. Panel selection is based on domain qualifications and absolute absence of conflicts of interest. Cycles are handled with strict confidentiality.

Evaluation Criteria Focus:
  • Originality: Conceptual novelty and regional/medical relevance.
  • Methodology Rigor: Appropriateness of design & sampling metrics.
  • Data & Results: Accuracy, tracking completeness, and transparency.
  • Ethical Clearance: Valid ethics approvals & privacy safeguards.
  • Interpretation Logic: Stated text tightly backed by observed findings.
  • Literature Tracking: Depth, recentness, and accuracy of citations.
  • Technical Presentation: Structural clarity, language flow, layout scannability, and readability.
Revision & Resubmission Protocols

When modifications are requested, authors receive anonymized expert memos. Resubmitted bundles must contain:

1. Revised Manuscript Draft A clean text copy addressing all editor and reviewer comments.
2. Point-by-Point Response A structured sheet detailing exactly how every query was resolved.
3. Highlighted Changes Log A clear tracking version showing line-item or text color changes.
Final Editorial Determinations

Final publication rights are determined exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief based on five decision tracks:

Accept Minor Revision Major Revision Reject & Resubmit Reject
Independence Shield: Decisions rely purely on scholarly and ethical merit. Author identity, affiliation, nationality, funding links, or corporate status hold zero weight inside decision tracks.
Reviewer Safeguards & Generative AI Prohibitions

Reviewers are strictly bound to keep manuscript tracks confidential, state competing interests immediately, and evaluate papers exclusively inside their zone of expertise. Leveraging unpublished text for personal gain is strictly barred.

Strict Generative AI Ban: Reviewers and editors are strictly prohibited from uploading unpublished manuscripts, review comments, or author text blocks into public generative AI tools or automated external systems, ensuring intellectual confidentiality remains uncompromised.
Editorial Independence & Policy Audits

BJHS maintains uncompromised independence. Review outputs remain protected against advertising loops, funding pressures, or commercial demands. Clashed roles are reallocated instantly to neutral units. This policy undergoes continuous updates to track emerging international publication ethics, COPE standards, and digital safety frameworks.

Commitment to Scientific Validation & Academic Rigor
Believers Journal of Health Sciences guarantees that no commercial or financial influence can alter the verification cycle of medical scholarship. By deploying secure double-blind evaluation tracks, the journal provides clinicians and medical teams with verified, peer-evaluated health data logs.