Reviewer Guidelines

P-ISSN: 3117-3284 E-ISSN: 3117-3292
Reviewer Guidelines

Believers Journal of Health Sciences (BJHS) relies on qualified reviewers to maintain the academic quality, originality, ethical integrity, and relevance of published research. Reviewers play an essential role in supporting fair and constructive editorial decisions.

BJHS follows a strict double-blind peer-review process. Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts objectively, confidentially, and solely on the basis of scholarly merit, ensuring an unbiased lifecycle for all incoming health sciences research.

Core Reviewer Mandates
• Evaluate manuscripts strictly within their specific area of expertise
• Accept invitations only when able to deliver a fair, timely assessment
• Maintain absolute confidentiality regarding data and processing logs
• Disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest immediately
• Supply highly objective, respectful, and constructive textual comments
• Refrain from attempting to contact the research authors directly
Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
• Clear relevance to the explicit health sciences scope boundaries
• Novel study originality and overall contribution value to the field
• Soundness of research design, methodology, and data analysis systems
• Presence of proper institutional IRB clearances and consent logs
• Adequacy, accuracy, and formatting consistency of the references
• Validity of recorded conclusions and immediate practical implications
Confidentiality Parameters

All manuscript files received for review are protected confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, discuss, or use unpublished information or methods for personal or professional benefit. Under the double-blind setup, reviewer identities remain entirely secure, and experts must not attempt to discover author frameworks.

Conflict of Interest Declarations

Reviewers must decline an invitation if an interest clash might compromise impartiality. Clashes include personal, collaborative, financial, or institutional ties with the authors, recent joint supervision lines, or direct competition. Any potential conflict layer must be reported to the Editor prior to beginning review.

Artificial Intelligence Restrictions

Strict Restriction: Reviewers must not upload, copy, or process confidential manuscript text into public artificial intelligence (AI) tools or third-party platforms. Any deployment of automated technical tools must maintain complete data privacy bounds and cannot replace independent scholarly judgment.

Wording & Recommendations Spectrum

Comments should be specific and constructive, focusing purely on text quality rather than personal criticism. Reviewers submit one of five advisory recommendation selections:

• Accept  |  • Minor Revisions  |  • Major Revisions  |  • Reject & Resubmit  |  • Reject
Reporting Ethical Concerns

Reviewers must notify the Editor immediately if they identify potential ethical misconduct—including text plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, duplicate submission patterns, missing patient confidentiality protection, or citation manipulation. Reviewers should supply raw details to the office but must not independently investigate allegations or communicate with authors. The Editorial Office coordinates such audits confidentially under COPE framework lines.

Recognition Notice: BJHS highly appreciates the contribution of its reviewers and recognizes their vital role in maintaining the quality and integrity of global scholarly publishing. Reviewer participation remains completely advisory and does not grant direct editorial influence over final publication decisions.