Believers Journal of Health Sciences (BJHS) relies on qualified reviewers to maintain academic quality, originality, ethical integrity, and relevance in published research. Reviewers play an essential role in supporting fair and constructive editorial decisions.
BJHS operates a strict double-anonymized peer-review process. Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts objectively, confidentially, and strictly on scientific merit to ensure an impartial evaluation cycle across all healthcare disciplines.
All manuscript files received for review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, discuss, or use unpublished findings or methods for personal advantage. Under the double-anonymized framework, reviewer identities remain strictly confidential.
Reviewers must decline review invitations if a conflict of interest compromises objectivity. Conflicts include personal, collaborative, financial, or institutional ties with authors, recent co-authorships, or direct competition. Any potential conflict must be declared immediately to the Editor.
Strict Policy: Reviewers must not upload, copy, or process confidential manuscript files or metadata into public artificial intelligence (AI) tools or external software platforms. AI tools must not replace independent scholarly evaluation and critical judgment.
Feedback should be specific, constructive, and focused entirely on scientific presentation. Reviewers select one of five advisory recommendation categories:
Reviewers must inform the Editorial Office immediately if they suspect ethical misconduct, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate submission, missing patient consent, or citation manipulation. Reviewers should provide factual observations to the office but must not investigate independently or contact authors. All ethical concerns are handled strictly according to COPE guidelines.