Aims and Scope

BJBM is a peer-reviewed, open access journal committed to publishing original, analytically rigorous, and ethically sound scholarship in business, management, economics, finance, policy, governance, technology, entrepreneurship, and related interdisciplinary fields.

Mission

The journal provides a platform for scholarship that advances knowledge and contributes meaningfully to policy, professional practice, institutional strategy, and responsible decision-making. BJBM values work that combines scholarly quality with contextual relevance.

Geographic and Intellectual Orientation

BJBM particularly welcomes work relevant to Bhutan, the Himalayan region, South Asia, and comparable international contexts, while remaining open to research of wider regional or global significance.

Target Readership

The journal is intended for:

• researchers and academics;
• university teachers and students;
• policymakers and regulators;
• professionals and practitioners;
• development agencies and institutions; and
• leaders in business, public administration, and civil society.

Types of Work Considered

BJBM may publish:

• original research articles;
• review articles;
• methodological and analytical papers;
• empirical qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies;
• policy and practice papers;
• case studies;
• book reviews; and
• invited editorials or commentaries.

Indicative Subject Areas

The journal welcomes, but is not limited to, work in:

• management and organisational studies;
• economics, development, and public policy;
• accounting, finance, and financial markets;
• banking, insurance, and risk;
• marketing and consumer behaviour;
• entrepreneurship, innovation, and SMEs;
• operations, logistics, and supply chain management;
• digital transformation, information systems, and business analytics;
• governance, sustainability, business ethics, and responsible leadership;
• tourism, service industries, and sector-specific management issues; and
• interdisciplinary work connected to business and management.

Editorial Threshold

Submissions must be original, relevant to the journal, methodologically credible, analytically sound, ethically compliant, and clearly written. Manuscripts that are outside scope, insufficiently developed, poorly evidenced, or inconsistent with the journal’s ethical or editorial standards may be declined without external review.

Languages

BJBM accepts submissions in English and Dzongkha, subject to the same standards of scholarly and editorial assessment.

Author Instructions

Authors should read these instructions carefully before submission. The journal may return incomplete submissions or decline to review manuscripts that materially fail to meet the requirements below.

Scope Fit and Target Readership

BJBM publishes scholarly work in business, management, economics, finance, policy, governance, entrepreneurship, operations, technology and related interdisciplinary fields. The journal serves researchers, educators, practitioners, policymakers, institutional leaders, and other professionally engaged readers interested in analytically rigorous work with academic and practical relevance.

Authors should submit only work that clearly fits the journal’s aims and scope and makes a defensible contribution to knowledge, policy, practice, or institutional decision-making.

Article Types

BJBM may consider the following categories:

• Research Articles
• Review Articles
• Case Studies
• Methodological Papers
• Policy and Practice Papers
• Book Reviews
• Invited Editorials or Commentaries

The journal reserves the right to reclassify a submission where appropriate.

Language

BJBM accepts submissions in English and Dzongkha. Manuscripts submitted in Dzongkha must include an English title, abstract, and keywords. The journal may request language improvement where clarity is insufficient for fair review or production.

Originality and Exclusive Submission

Submissions must be original and must not be under consideration by another journal, book publisher, or substantially overlapping publication venue at the same time. Any prior dissemination, including as a thesis, dissertation, working paper, conference paper, repository version, or preprint, must be disclosed at submission.

Preprints and Prior Dissemination

Posting a manuscript on a recognised preprint server, thesis repository, institutional repository, or similar scholarly platform is not necessarily treated as prior publication, provided that the posting is disclosed at submission, does not breach confidentiality or copyright obligations, and does not involve concurrent formal review by another journal. Authors should disclose any earlier public version and update it responsibly after journal publication in accordance with the journal’s licensing and repository policy.

Authorship Criteria

Authorship is limited to persons who have made a substantial scholarly contribution to the work and who are able to take appropriate responsibility for its integrity. To qualify as an author, each listed author must have made a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the development of the argument, method, or critical intellectual content of the manuscript.

In addition, each author must have participated in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content, must have approved the version submitted to the journal and any version accepted for publication, and must agree to be accountable for the accuracy and integrity of the contribution attributed to that author and to cooperate in the investigation and resolution of any question concerning the work.

Guest, gift, honorary, and ghost authorship are not permitted. Supervisory status, institutional position, seniority, funding acquisition alone, general oversight, language correction alone, or administrative support alone do not justify authorship.

Responsibilities of All Authors

All authors are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript is original, that the work has been honestly and accurately reported, that relevant prior work is appropriately cited, that required disclosures are complete, and that any ethics, consent, confidentiality, permissions, and data-related obligations have been addressed. All authors must review and approve the submitted manuscript and any revised version before submission or resubmission.

Responsibilities of the Corresponding Author

The corresponding author acts as the primary contact with the journal and is responsible for ensuring that all eligible contributors are appropriately recognised, that no inappropriate authors are included, that all authors have seen and approved the submitted manuscript and any revised version, that declarations and supporting documentation are accurate and complete, and that all authors are kept appropriately informed of editorial decisions, reviewer comments, and publication-related matters.

Author Contribution Statement

Authors must provide an author contribution statement at the time of submission. The statement should specify the substantive contribution made by each listed author to the work. The journal may use a structured contributorship format, including a recognised contributor taxonomy, where appropriate.

The contribution statement must be accurate, agreed by all authors, and consistent with the authorship list. The journal may publish the contribution statement in the final article.

Acknowledgement of Non-Author Contributions

Contributors who do not meet the journal’s authorship criteria should not be listed as authors but may be acknowledged where appropriate. This may include, for example, technical assistance, language editing, professional writing support, administrative support, data collection assistance, logistical help, or general supervision that did not amount to authorship.

Authors should ensure that any person named in the acknowledgements has given permission to be identified where such permission is appropriate. Sources of non-author support, including editorial assistance, paid writing assistance, or sponsor-funded support, must be disclosed transparently.

Changes to Authorship

Any request to add, remove, reorder, or otherwise amend authorship after submission must be made in writing and must explain the reason for the proposed change. The request must normally be supported by written agreement from all listed authors and, where relevant, from any contributor proposed for addition or removal.

The journal may pause editorial assessment, peer review, or production while an authorship question is being considered. Where the journal considers that an authorship dispute cannot be resolved on the basis of the information provided, the journal may require clarification from the authors’ institution(s) or may suspend further handling of the manuscript until the matter has been resolved by the relevant institution(s). The journal reserves the right to reject a submission or decline publication where authorship is not transparently and credibly established.

Changes to authorship after acceptance will be permitted only in exceptional circumstances.

Manuscript Length

As a general guide, manuscripts should not exceed 16,000 words inclusive of tables, figures, notes, appendices, and references unless specifically invited or approved otherwise. Most standard research articles will normally fall within the 7,000–12,000 word range.

Initial Submission Format

BJBM permits a professionally prepared free-format initial submission, provided the manuscript is complete, readable, and structured for peer review. Authors may also use the journal’s preferred template where available. If a paper is invited for revision or accepted, authors may be required to conform fully to the journal’s formatting and style requirements.

Files to Upload

Authors should normally submit:

• an anonymised main manuscript file for peer review;
• a separate title page containing author names, affiliations, ORCID identifiers where available, and corresponding author details;
• tables, figures, or high-resolution image files if submitted separately;
• supplementary materials, where applicable; and
• a brief cover letter explaining the manuscript’s fit, contribution, and any declarations requiring editorial attention.

Preparing for Double-Blind Review

The anonymised manuscript must not include author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, self-identifying text, or tracked metadata that would compromise anonymous review. Where self-citation is necessary, it should be phrased neutrally during review.

Title Page Requirements

The title page should include:

• full article title;
• short title where relevant;
• full names of all authors;
• institutional affiliations;
• corresponding author email address;
• ORCID identifiers where available;
• funding information;
• acknowledgements; and
• any relevant author notes.

Author-Suggested or Opposed Reviewers

The journal may permit authors to suggest potential reviewers or identify individuals they believe should not review the manuscript, provided reasons are supplied where relevant. The journal is not bound by such suggestions or exclusions, and the final choice of reviewers rests entirely with the editors.

Abstract and Keywords

Research articles should include an informative abstract and appropriate keywords. The abstract should state the purpose, approach, principal findings, and contribution of the work.

Declarations Required at Submission

Where relevant, manuscripts must include or be accompanied by:

• funding statement;
• conflict of interest statement;
• authorship/contributorship information;
• an author contribution statement agreed by all authors;
• author contribution statement;
• ethics approval or ethics exemption statement;
• informed consent statement where applicable;
• data availability statement;
• AI-use disclosure where material generative or assistive tools were used;
• permissions for third-party material; and
• preprint or prior-dissemination disclosure.

Ethical Oversight

Where the research involves human participants, personal data, confidential organisational material, proprietary datasets, interviews, surveys, classroom research, experiments, or other ethically sensitive methods, authors must state what approvals, permissions, consent arrangements, or exemptions applied and must be prepared to supply supporting documentation if requested.

Data Availability and Transparency

Data, Code, and Materials Availability

BJBM supports greater transparency, replicability, and trust in published research. For empirical, experimental, computational, qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, and evidence-based studies, the journal expects authors to make the data, code, instruments, protocols, questionnaires, interview guides, appendices, and other materials necessary to understand, evaluate, or replicate the reported work available wherever lawful, ethical, and feasible. Exceptions are permitted where justified, but they must be clearly explained. Where the nature of the study permits, authors should prefer open sharing over access on request.

Authors must include a data availability statement in every submission. The statement should explain whether the relevant data, code, and supporting materials are openly available, available on request, available under controlled access, restricted, confidential, proprietary, or not applicable, and should state clearly how access may be obtained where access is possible. The statement should not promise access that the authors cannot realistically maintain.

Where data or materials are openly available, authors should deposit them in a trusted domain-specific, institutional, or general-purpose repository that provides a stable record and, where possible, a persistent identifier such as a DOI or accession number. Where repository deposit is not feasible, authors should explain how the materials are being preserved and how access will be managed.

Where authors rely on access on request rather than open deposit, the data availability statement should identify the responsible contact point, the basis on which access decisions will be made, any eligibility or confidentiality conditions, and the expected retention period. As a matter of good practice, authors should retain the underlying data, code, and core research materials for at least 5 years after publication unless a longer retention period is required by law, funder, institution, contract, or discipline. Access should not be unreasonably withheld where the statement represents that access is available. If promised access later becomes unavailable and the material is important to editorial verification, the journal may seek clarification and may take proportionate editorial action.

Where full sharing is not possible because of confidentiality, privacy, legal restrictions, commercial sensitivity, contractual obligations, security concerns, third-party ownership, or ethical limitations, authors must explain the restriction in the data availability statement. In such cases, authors should share as much as can responsibly be shared, which may include anonymised, redacted, aggregated, synthetic, excerpted, or metadata-only versions, codebooks, variable lists, analytic scripts, or access conditions for qualified researchers where appropriate.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that any shared data involving human participants or confidential organisational information are appropriately de-identified, anonymised, or otherwise protected before sharing. Where data cannot be shared, authors should still provide sufficient methodological, documentary, and analytical detail to allow readers and editors to understand how the work was conducted and assessed. Questions about data-integrity verification are addressed in the journal’s Research Ethics and Research Integrity policies, while originality and overlap issues are addressed in the Plagiarism Policy.

Data Availability Statement

The data availability statement should appear in the manuscript and should accurately describe the availability status of the underlying data, code, and other relevant materials. Where applicable, the statement should identify the repository name, persistent identifier, access conditions, version information, or the reason why the materials cannot be shared.

Data and Software Citation

Datasets, code, software, instruments, and other reusable research outputs used or generated in the study should be cited in the manuscript where relevant and included in the reference list where they constitute citable research objects. Data and software citations should identify the creator, year, title, version where relevant, repository or publisher, and persistent identifier or accession information where available.

Reporting Integrity

Data, quotations, citations, figures, tables, and methods must be reported accurately and transparently. Fabrication, falsification, deceptive omission, inappropriate image manipulation, misleading statistical presentation, and citation manipulation are prohibited.

Study Registration and Reporting Guidelines

Where a study design is normally expected to be prospectively registered, authors should provide the name of the registry, the registration number, and the date of registration at submission and in the manuscript where appropriate. This expectation may apply not only to clinical-style studies, but also to intervention studies, field experiments, trials, policy experiments, and other designs for which prior registration is a recognised norm. If registration was not completed prospectively where such registration would normally be expected, authors should explain this clearly.

Authors should prepare manuscripts in accordance with recognised reporting standards appropriate to the study design where such standards exist. Depending on the nature of the study, this may include reporting guidance for systematic reviews, observational studies, qualitative research, intervention studies, experimental work, case-based analyses, health economic studies, or other established designs. Authors should ensure that the manuscript reports sufficient methodological, analytical, and procedural detail for editorial and peer review assessment.

Where a recognised reporting checklist is relevant to the study design, authors should normally submit the completed checklist at the time of submission. The journal may request the checklist at revision or before acceptance where it was not supplied earlier or where further clarification is needed. Authors should ensure that all items relevant to their study have been addressed in the manuscript or clearly explained where not applicable.

Datasets, software, instruments, and other reusable research materials should be cited in accordance with the journal’s Data, Code, and Materials Availability requirements.

Use of Generative AI and Similar Tools

If authors use generative AI or similar tools in a material way during drafting, translation, coding, analysis assistance, image preparation, or other parts of manuscript development, that use must be disclosed transparently. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, legality, confidentiality, permissions, and integrity of the submitted work, including the verification of facts, quotations, analyses, images, tables, and references. AI tools may not be listed as authors, and they must not be used to fabricate data, generate fictitious references, create deceptive images, or evade authorship and confidentiality responsibilities.

References and Third-Party Material

Authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of all citations and references. Any third-party material requiring permission must be lawfully used, appropriately credited, and accompanied by any necessary permission documentation.

Fees

BJBM currently charges no submission fees, article processing charges, publication fees, page charges, or standard online hosting fees for accepted articles. If the journal’s fee policy changes in the future, that change will be clearly stated on the journal website and will not be applied retrospectively to manuscripts already under active consideration unless expressly stated.

Third-Party Material and Intellectual Property

Authors are responsible for ensuring that any third-party material included in a submission, including images, figures, tables, instruments, extended quotations, datasets, or supplementary files, is used lawfully and with any permissions required for publication and reuse. Authors must ensure that publication of the submitted work does not infringe the intellectual property rights, confidentiality obligations, contractual restrictions, or lawful proprietary interests of any third party.

Where the article is published under an open licence, that licence applies only to material for which the journal and authors have the right to license reuse. Third-party material may remain subject to separate rights and permissions.

Research and Publication Ethics

Authors must ensure that submitted work is original, honestly reported, properly attributed, and prepared in accordance with applicable ethical, legal, and professional standards. Where relevant, authors must disclose ethics approval, ethics exemption, informed consent arrangements, permissions, funding, conflicts of interest, prior dissemination, data access limitations, and material use of generative AI or similar tools.

Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, deceptive image manipulation, misleading statistical presentation, undisclosed authorship or writing assistance, inappropriate citation practices, redundant publication, and undisclosed competing interests are prohibited. The journal may request supporting documentation and may take editorial or post-publication action where serious concerns arise.

All authors must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other competing interest that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the conduct, interpretation, or presentation of the work. If no such competing interests exist, the submission should state that no competing interests have been declared.

Peer Review and Reviewer Suggestions

Details of the journal’s peer review model, reviewer appointment, editorial decisions, and appeals are set out in the Peer Review Policy and Complaints and Appeals Policy.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe there has been a material error of fact, process, evidence assessment, or procedural fairness. Appeals must be submitted in writing, must state the grounds clearly, and must be based on substantive reasons rather than mere disagreement with the editorial outcome. Appeals are considered in accordance with the journal’s complaints and appeals policy. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or reversal of the original decision.

Revised Submissions

When submitting a revision, authors should normally provide:

• a clean revised manuscript;
• a tracked-changes or marked version if requested; and
• a point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.

Submission Checklist

Before submitting, authors should confirm that:

• the manuscript is original and not under review elsewhere;
• the manuscript fits the journal’s aims and scope;
• the main review file is anonymised;
• all authors approve the submission;
• required declarations are complete;
• ethics and permission issues have been addressed;
• references are accurate; and
• the submission complies with journal policies.

Contact

Questions about submission may be sent to: editorbjbm.gcbs@rub.edu.bt.

Conflict of Interest and Competing Interests Policy

BJBM requires the disclosure and proper management of conflicts of interest or competing interests that could reasonably be perceived to affect the objectivity, integrity, fairness, or credibility of the publication process.

Scope

This policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, guest editors, editorial board members, editorial office staff, production or administrative staff, publisher or owner representatives, and others involved in editorial or publication decisions.

What Counts as a Conflict or Competing Interest

A competing interest may be financial, professional, institutional, academic, personal, political, ideological, or relational. Direct and indirect interests may both be relevant. The question is whether a reasonable reader or participant might consider the interest capable of influencing judgment, independence, fairness, or credibility.

What Must Be Disclosed and When

All covered parties must disclose interests that are reasonably relevant to the manuscript, the review process, an editorial decision, a complaint, an appeal, or publication management. Disclosure should cover both current interests and recent past interests that remain reasonably relevant, normally including relationships or arrangements from the preceding 36 months, as well as older interests where their continuing significance could reasonably be questioned. Disclosures should identify the nature of the interest, the relevant entity or relationship, the time period, and the extent of the interest in sufficient detail for the journal to assess whether management is required.

Authors must disclose relevant interests at submission and must update those disclosures at revision, acceptance, or whenever circumstances materially change. Reviewers must disclose relevant interests when invited and again if circumstances change before or during review. Editors and guest editors must disclose relevant interests on assignment and recuse themselves where appropriate. Editorial board members, editorial office staff, production or administrative staff, and publisher or owner representatives must disclose relevant interests when they become involved in a manuscript, complaint, appeal, policy matter, or publication decision.

Author Disclosure

Authors must disclose any interests relevant to the submitted work, including where applicable:

• employment or consultancy relationships;
• grants, sponsorship, or financial support;
• board memberships or advisory roles;
• patents, products, or commercial interests;
• institutional or political interests that may reasonably be perceived as relevant; and
• any other relationship that could create a perception of bias.

Authors should also disclose the role of any funder or sponsor in the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, or reporting of the work.

Reviewer Conflicts

Reviewers must decline review where they have a conflict or significant competing interest that could compromise impartiality. Where uncertainty exists, the reviewer should disclose the matter to the editor and seek guidance before proceeding.

Editorial Conflicts

Editors and guest editors must recuse themselves from any manuscript in which they have an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. A conflicted editor must not influence reviewer selection, correspondence, or decision-making.

Board, Staff, and Publisher Interests

Editorial board members, editorial office staff, production or administrative staff, and publisher or owner representatives must protect editorial independence, confidentiality, and fairness. They must not use their position to obtain unfair advantage in submission handling, editorial decisions, or publication priority, and they must not direct or improperly influence the acceptance, rejection, review, revision, scheduling, or prioritisation of any manuscript.

Management of Conflicts

Where a conflict is disclosed or identified, the journal may:

• request additional disclosure;
• publish a disclosure statement;
• reassign a manuscript;
• exclude a reviewer or editor from involvement;
• request clarification from the authors; or
• take post-publication action where a significant undisclosed conflict affects the record.

Failure to Disclose

Failure to disclose a material conflict may result in rejection, editorial reassignment, correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other proportionate action.

Copyright, Licensing, and Reuse Policy

Copyright

Unless otherwise stated, authors retain copyright in their work.

Publishing Licence

By publishing in BJBM, authors grant the journal a non-exclusive right to publish, reproduce, distribute, display, preserve, and identify itself as the original publisher of the work.

Open Licence

Unless otherwise specified, articles published in BJBM are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. This licence permits sharing and adaptation of the work, provided appropriate credit is given, a link to the licence is provided, and any changes are indicated.

Third-Party Material

Authors are responsible for ensuring that any third-party material included in a manuscript is lawfully used and appropriately credited and that any necessary permissions have been obtained before publication.

Repository and Author Sharing

Authors may share, deposit, and disseminate their published work in accordance with the licence terms, provided that the journal is acknowledged as the original place of publication and that any formal citation details or DOI are included once available.

Integrity of the Published Record

Reuse must not misrepresent the published work, remove required attribution, or create confusion about the version of record.

Questions

Questions regarding copyright or reuse may be sent to: [Insert journal copyright/contact email].

Peer Review Policy

What Is Peer Reviewed and Review Model

BJBM uses double-blind peer review for scholarly submissions that fall within the journal’s peer-reviewed content. Original research articles, review articles, methodological and analytical papers, empirical qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies, policy and practice papers, and case studies are normally subject to external peer review. Invited editorials, commentaries, and book reviews may be handled by editorial assessment alone unless the journal determines that external peer review is appropriate for a particular submission.

Peer review is managed through the journal’s editorial structure. The handling editor manages the review process for the manuscript, including reviewer invitation, communication, and assessment of reports. The Editor-in-Chief provides oversight of the peer review process and is responsible for the final editorial decision unless recused because of a conflict of interest.

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is intended to support fair editorial decision-making, improve the quality of manuscripts, and protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant expertise, methodological competence, independence, and lack of significant conflicts of interest. Reviewer suggestions from authors may be considered but do not determine editorial choice.

Confidentiality

All submissions under review are confidential. Reviewers and editors must handle manuscripts and review materials accordingly.

Number of Reviews

Research articles are normally sent to at least two reviewers, although the journal may vary this where appropriate based on manuscript type, stage, or specialist need.

Revision and Re-Review

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers, sent to new reviewers, or assessed editorially, depending on the nature of the revision and the editor’s judgment.

Integrity and Manipulation

The journal does not tolerate peer-review manipulation, fabricated reviewer identities, misleading reviewer contact details, coercive review practices, or other attempts to interfere improperly with the review process.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose and manage conflicts of interest in accordance with journal policy.

Use of AI or External Systems

The confidentiality of submitted material must not be compromised through unauthorised uploading to external systems, including generative AI platforms.

Professional Conduct

Peer review should be respectful, constructive, and evidence-based. Unprofessional, abusive, or discriminatory review language is not acceptable.

Appeals and Review-Related Complaints

Concerns relating to peer review may be raised under the journal’s complaints and appeals policy.

Reviewer Selection and Appointment

Reviewers are selected by the editors on the basis of subject expertise, methodological competence, independence of judgment, and the absence of significant competing interests. The journal normally seeks reports from at least two reviewers for research articles, while retaining editorial discretion to invite additional reviewers where the subject matter is unusually specialised, where reports materially conflict, or where further expertise is required.

To support review quality, the journal provides reviewers with written reviewer guidelines, structured review criteria, and editorial instructions at the time of invitation and review. Editors may provide clarification, calibration, or feedback where appropriate, particularly where reviewers are new to the journal or where additional guidance is needed to maintain consistency, fairness, and scholarly standards.

Use of Reviewer Reports

Reviewer reports are advisory and are considered alongside the editor’s independent assessment of the manuscript’s originality, significance, methodological and analytical soundness, ethical integrity, clarity, and fit with the journal. Editorial decisions are not made by simple vote-counting and may depart from individual reviewer recommendations where the editor considers this justified.

Where reviewer reports materially conflict, the editor may seek clarification, invite an additional review, or make a reasoned editorial judgment based on the record as a whole.

Editorial Decisions and Responsibility

Reviewer reports are advisory and are considered together with the editor’s independent assessment of the manuscript’s originality, significance, methodological and analytical soundness, ethical integrity, clarity, and fit with the journal. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest or must otherwise recuse themselves from the case, the final decision will be made by the Managing Editor or, where appropriate, by one of the journal’s editors who is free from the relevant conflict and has not been materially compromised in the handling of the manuscript.

Editorial Decisions

The journal may issue one of the following decisions: accept; accept subject to minor revision; invite major revision and resubmission; reject with the possibility of a substantially new submission; or reject. Acceptance is granted only when the editor is satisfied that the manuscript meets the journal’s scholarly, editorial, and ethical standards.

Review of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the handling editor alone or may be returned to one or more of the original reviewers or to a new reviewer, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, the issues raised during review, and the editor’s judgment regarding the need for further expert assessment. Minor revisions may be assessed editorially. Major revisions will normally be returned for further review unless the editor determines that the relevant concerns have been fully and straightforwardly resolved on the record.

Reviewer Guidelines

BJBM relies on expert reviewers to provide fair, constructive, confidential, timely, and scholarly rigorous evaluations of manuscripts.

Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers should assess the manuscript’s originality, relevance, methodological soundness, analytical quality, clarity, ethical acceptability, and contribution to scholarship or practice. Reviewers should support sound editorial decision-making and help authors improve their work where revision is appropriate.

Before Accepting an Invitation

Reviewers should accept an invitation only if they:

• have suitable subject or methodological expertise;
• can provide an impartial review;
• do not have a significant conflict of interest; and
• can complete the review within the requested timeframe.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline a review where there is an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could reasonably compromise impartiality. Examples include recent collaboration, close personal relationship, supervisory relationship, institutional proximity, direct academic competition, or financial interest.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, circulate, discuss, or use any part of the submission for personal, academic, financial, or competitive benefit. Review content and editorial correspondence must also be treated confidentially.

Review Standards

Reviews should be:

• evidence-based and specific;
• respectful and professional;
• free from personal, discriminatory, or hostile language;
• focused on the work rather than the author; and
• sufficiently reasoned to support the recommendation.

What Reviewers Should Comment On

Reviewers may consider, where relevant:

• fit with the journal’s scope;
• originality and significance;
• adequacy of literature engagement;
• clarity of research question or argument;
• design, methods, and analysis;
• interpretation of findings;
• ethical considerations;
• clarity of writing and organisation; and
• suitability of tables, figures, references, and supplementary materials.

Integrity Concerns

Reporting Suspected Misconduct

If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, unethical research, authorship irregularity, citation manipulation, breach of confidentiality, or any other serious concern, the reviewer should report the matter confidentially to the journal and should not contact the authors directly. The journal’s procedures for handling such allegations are set out in the Research Integrity and Ethical Oversight policy.

Contact with Authors

Reviewers must not contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript. All communication should take place through the journal.

Use of AI and External Tools

Reviewers must not upload a manuscript, substantial manuscript content, or confidential review materials into generative AI systems or unauthorised third-party tools that may compromise confidentiality, copyright, or data protection. If a reviewer wishes to use any external assistance that may affect confidentiality, prior editorial permission is required.

Recommendation

Reviewers should provide a reasoned recommendation, but final editorial decisions rest with the journal.

Revised Manuscripts

When reviewing a revision, reviewers should focus primarily on whether the authors have addressed the substantive concerns raised earlier. Entirely new major criticisms should not be introduced at a late stage unless they arise from the revised content or reflect a materially important issue previously overlooked.

Timeliness

If a reviewer cannot complete a review on time, the journal should be informed promptly so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Editor Guidelines

These guidelines apply to the Editor-in-Chief, associate or section editors, handling editors, managing editors, guest editors, and any other editorial personnel involved in manuscript handling.

Editorial Responsibility

Editors are accountable for the integrity, quality, fairness, consistency, and timeliness of the editorial process. Editors should take reasonable steps to ensure that what is published in the journal meets the journal’s scholarly and ethical standards.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions must be made independently and must not be influenced by the publisher, owners, sponsors, advertisers, institutional pressure, political interests, commercial interests, or personal relationships.

Fair and Unbiased Evaluation

Editors must evaluate manuscripts on scholarly merit, relevance, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and clarity. Decisions must not be influenced by authors’ nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, political belief, institutional affiliation, seniority, or other irrelevant personal characteristics.

Confidentiality

Editors must treat manuscripts, reviewer identities where protected, reports, correspondence, and supporting documentation as confidential. Confidential materials must not be used for personal advantage.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors must recuse themselves from handling any manuscript where they have an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. This includes submissions involving close collaborators, close personal contacts, students, supervisors, recent co-authors, institutional conflicts, direct competitors, or financial interests.

Editor-Authored and Board-Authored Submissions

Submissions authored or co-authored by an editor, guest editor, editorial board member, or any person with editorial influence over the journal must be handled independently by an uninvolved editor with full authority over the process. The submitting individual must take no part in reviewer selection, discussion, or decision-making.

Initial Assessment

Editors should assess whether submissions fit the journal’s scope and meet the threshold for peer review. Desk rejection may be appropriate where a manuscript is clearly out of scope, ethically problematic, methodologically unsound, seriously underdeveloped, or otherwise unsuitable for review.

Reviewer Selection and Oversight

Editors should select reviewers on the basis of relevant expertise, methodological competence, diversity of perspective where appropriate, and absence of significant conflicts. Editors should monitor reviewer conduct and should not forward abusive, discriminatory, or unprofessional review language without intervention.

Decision-Making

Reviewer reports are advisory. Editors should exercise independent judgment and provide decisions that are reasoned, proportionate, and consistent with the evidence in the manuscript and reviewer feedback.

Complaints, Appeals, and Integrity Concerns

Editors should take complaints, appeals, and misconduct allegations seriously and handle them according to journal policy. Where necessary, editors may seek institutional clarification, supporting documentation, or publisher advice.

Record Keeping

Editors should ensure that key editorial decisions, conflicts, author communications, and integrity concerns are appropriately documented.

Guest Editors

Guest editors must operate under the same standards of fairness, confidentiality, and conflict management as the journal’s regular editors. Ultimate oversight and final authority remain with the journal’s authorised editorial leadership.

Professional Conduct

Editors should communicate respectfully, transparently, and professionally with authors, reviewers, and colleagues. They should avoid retaliatory, defamatory, or dismissive behaviour and should manage disputes calmly and fairly.

Continuous Improvement

Editors should support reviewer development, policy improvement, process quality, and editorial learning in order to strengthen the journal over time.

Special Issue Policy

BJBM may publish Special Issues, themed sections, or guest-edited collections where these serve the journal’s mission and can be managed without compromising editorial integrity.

General Principle

Special Issues are subject to the same standards of editorial oversight, peer review, publication ethics, transparency, and post-publication correction as regular issues. No Special Issue will operate under reduced editorial scrutiny.

Approval of Proposals

A Special Issue proposal should normally include:

• a proposed title and rationale;
• thematic relevance to the journal;
• an explanation of scholarly value and expected contribution;
• the proposed guest editor or guest editorial team;
• indicative contributors or outreach plans, if relevant;
• an anticipated timeline; and
• any known funding, sponsorship, partnership, or conflict-of-interest considerations.

Vetting of Guest Editors

Guest editors must be selected and approved carefully. The journal may consider expertise, publication record, editorial experience, institutional affiliation, public professional profile, prior collaboration patterns, and any integrity concerns or conflicts of interest. The journal may refuse, replace, or limit guest editor roles where risks are identified.

Journal Oversight

Ultimate authority for the Special Issue remains with the Editor-in-Chief or another authorised regular editor designated by the journal. The journal may intervene at any stage, reassign manuscripts, request additional review, suspend an issue, or discontinue a collection where fairness, quality, or integrity require it.

Same Standards as Regular Content

Special Issue manuscripts must meet the same standards as regular submissions with respect to:

• scope and scholarly quality;
• originality and methodological rigour;
• peer review;
• conflict disclosure;
• ethical compliance;
• authorship integrity; and
• post-publication accountability.

Guest Editor Responsibilities

Guest editors are expected to act fairly, confidentially, professionally, and in accordance with all journal policies. They must disclose conflicts of interest promptly and must not favour collaborators, students, colleagues, or institutional associates.

Handling Conflicted Submissions

No guest editor may control the review or decision on a manuscript authored or co-authored by:

• themselves;
• close collaborators;
• current or recent students or supervisors;
• institutional colleagues where impartiality may reasonably be questioned; or
• any person with whom there is a significant personal, professional, or financial conflict.

Such manuscripts must be handled by an uninvolved regular editor appointed by the journal.

Peer Review in Special Issues

Peer review for Special Issue submissions must be genuine, independent, and appropriately documented. The journal may audit reviewer suggestions, reviewer identities, invitations, reports, and editorial decisions.

Transparency

The journal will identify Special Issues clearly on the website and will name guest editors where applicable. Where a manuscript is published in a Special Issue, this fact should be clear from the publication record.

Cancellation or Modification

The journal reserves the right to cancel, postpone, split, or convert a Special Issue into regular-issue content where quality, timeliness, or integrity concerns make this necessary.

Ethics Guidelines

BJBM is committed to integrity, transparency, fairness, accountability, and scholarly responsibility in all aspects of publishing.

Purpose

These ethics guidelines set out the journal-level expectations that apply to authors, reviewers, editors, guest editors, board members, and others involved in the journal’s editorial and publication processes.

Core Expectations

The journal expects all submitted and published work to be:

• original;
• honestly reported;
• ethically conducted;
• transparently documented;
• appropriately attributed; and
• suitable for confidential, fair, and responsible editorial evaluation.

Unacceptable Practices

BJBM does not accept:

• plagiarism or unattributed appropriation of others’ work;
• duplicate submission or duplicate publication;
• misleading text recycling or redundant publication;
• fabrication or falsification of data, methods, results, citations, approvals, or reviewer identities;
• deceptive image, table, or figure manipulation;
• unethical research practice;
• inappropriate authorship practices;
• manipulated peer review;
• undisclosed material conflicts of interest; or
• other serious forms of publication misconduct.

Shared Responsibilities

Authors, reviewers, and editors all share responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. Ethical publishing depends on honest conduct, good-faith communication, proper record keeping, and appropriate escalation where concerns arise.

Fairness and Respect

Editorial assessment and peer review must be conducted fairly and without discrimination. Scholarly disagreement is acceptable; personal attack, harassment, retaliation, and discriminatory conduct are not.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and integrity investigations must be handled confidentially and only disclosed where necessary for legitimate editorial, institutional, or legal purposes.

Transparency

The journal expects appropriate disclosure of authorship, contributorship, funding, conflicts of interest, ethics approval or exemption, informed consent where relevant, data availability, use of generative AI where material, and any prior dissemination of the work.

Misconduct Allegations

BJBM takes allegations of misconduct seriously whether they arise before publication or after publication. This section provides a summary only. The journal’s full reporting routes, conflict-handling arrangements, institutional and inter-journal contact principles, whistleblower protections, indicative timelines, and corrective measures are set out in the journal’s Research Integrity and Ethical Oversight policy under “Allegations of Misconduct”. The journal may request clarification, supporting evidence, institutional input, or other documentation and may take proportionate editorial action before or after publication.

Whistleblowers and Good-Faith Concerns

The journal will consider well-founded concerns raised by authors, reviewers, readers, institutions, anonymous whistleblowers, or other sources. Concerns are assessed on their substance and available supporting information, not dismissed solely because of the source, anonymity, tone alone, or the professional position of the complainant. Full procedural details are set out in the journal’s Research Integrity and Ethical Oversight policy under “Allegations of Misconduct”.

Sanctions and Editorial Action

Where serious misconduct or major non-compliance is established, BJBM may reject a submission, rescind acceptance, issue a correction or retraction, decline future submissions for a period of time, notify institutions or funders where appropriate, or take other proportionate action.

Related Policies

These ethics guidelines should be read together with the journal’s policies on peer review, corrections and retractions, conflict of interest, plagiarism, ethical oversight, reviewer guidelines, editor guidelines, and complaints and appeals.

Reporting Concerns

Concerns about publication ethics should normally be sent to editorbjbm.gcbs@rub.edu.bt and copied to crc.gcbs@rub.edu.bt. If the concern directly involves the Editor-in-Chief or another normal recipient, it should instead be sent to crc.gcbs@rub.edu.bt and bjbm.gcbs@rub.edu.bt. Full procedural details are set out in the journal’s Research Integrity and Ethical Oversight policy under “Allegations of Misconduct”.

Research Integrity and Ethical Oversight

BJBM expects research submitted to the journal to be conducted lawfully, honestly, transparently, and with appropriate respect for participants, organisations, communities, confidential information, and the integrity of the scholarly record.

Scope

This policy is especially relevant to research involving:

• human participants;
• personal or sensitive data;
• interviews, surveys, focus groups, and classroom-based studies;
• experiments or interventions;
• organisational access and confidential institutional material;
• proprietary or commercially sensitive data;
• vulnerable populations or higher-risk settings; and
• other ethically sensitive methods or sources.

Ethics Approval or Exemption

Where applicable, authors must state whether ethics approval, ethics exemption, organisational permission, gatekeeper approval, or other formal oversight was obtained. The approving body and reference number should be provided where relevant and possible.

Informed Consent

Where research involves human participants or identifiable data, authors should explain how consent was obtained, how participation was voluntary where appropriate, and how confidentiality or anonymity was protected. Where written consent was not feasible or not required, authors should explain the basis for the approach used.

Confidentiality, Privacy, and Data Protection

Authors must respect privacy, confidentiality, data protection obligations, and any lawful restrictions on disclosure. Identifiable information should not be published without appropriate legal and ethical basis.

Organisational and Proprietary Material

Research using confidential organisational information, administrative access, internal records, or proprietary datasets must be conducted and reported responsibly. Authors should ensure that permissions, confidentiality undertakings, and lawful access conditions are respected.

Vulnerable Populations and Sensitive Contexts

Where research involves potentially vulnerable participants or contexts involving unequal power, risk, or sensitivity, authors should show that the work was designed and conducted with appropriate safeguards.

Honest Reporting

Methods, data, analyses, quotations, and findings must be reported honestly and without fabrication, falsification, deceptive omission, or misleading presentation.

Editorial Ethics Screening and Verification

BJBM may conduct proportionate ethics and integrity screening before review, during review, before acceptance, and after publication where concerns arise. This screening complements, and does not replace, the more detailed requirements set out in the journal’s Plagiarism Policy, Conflicts of Interest Policy, Peer Review Policy, Data Availability and Transparency requirements, and Research Integrity and Ethical Oversight policy.

• textual overlap and originality screening, normally using iThenticate or an equivalent similarity-detection service, together with editorial judgment under the Plagiarism Policy;
• review of authorship, contributorship, affiliation, and disclosure information, and requests for clarification or institutional verification where authorship or affiliation concerns arise;
• review of ethics approval, ethics exemption, informed consent, organisational permission, and confidentiality statements where relevant to the study design;
• assessment of citation patterns, source use, and attribution where citation manipulation, misleading sourcing, or other integrity concerns appear possible;
• scrutiny of reviewer reports for signs that they are formulaic, insufficiently reasoned, unreliable, or inappropriately generated with AI or similar tools; such reviews may be disregarded and editors remain responsible for making independent editorial decisions; and
• requests for underlying data, code, or related materials where results, data patterns, analyses, tables, images, or reported findings appear abnormal, inconsistent, insufficiently supported, or otherwise raise a data-integrity concern.

Submitted work should comply with applicable disciplinary norms, institutional requirements, national law, and relevant international ethical and integrity principles where appropriate, including, where relevant to the study design and context, principles reflected in The Belmont Report (1979) and the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010).

Concerns and Action

Where ethical concerns arise before or after publication, the journal may seek clarification, request documentation, consult institutions or oversight bodies, pause processing, or take editorial action including correction, rejection, expression of concern, or retraction. Published studies remain subject to ethics and integrity review if credible new concerns emerge after publication.

Allegations of Misconduct

BJBM takes allegations of research misconduct, publication misconduct, and peer review misconduct seriously. Allegations may relate to, among other things, plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated or falsified data, deceptive image manipulation, unethical research, undisclosed competing interests, authorship irregularities, reviewer misconduct, editorial misconduct, citation manipulation, breach of confidentiality, or attempts to interfere improperly with editorial or peer review processes.

Reporting Concerns

Concerns should normally be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief at editorbjbm.gcbs@rub.edu.bt and copied to the College Research Committee (CRC) at crc.gcbs@rub.edu.bt. The CRC serves as an independent college-level body for ethics and integrity oversight in matters arising in connection with the journal.

If the concern directly involves the Editor-in-Chief, a member of the CRC, or another normal recipient of misconduct reports, the concern should instead be sent to crc.gcbs@rub.edu.bt and bjbm.gcbs@rub.edu.bt. In such cases, the matter will be assigned to the Managing Editor or another journal editor who is free from the relevant conflict, with appropriate independent oversight.

Concerns may be raised by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutions, publishers, whistleblowers, or other parties. Concerns may be submitted by a named source or anonymously. The journal will assess concerns on their substance and available supporting information and will not dismiss a concern solely because it is raised anonymously, by a third party, by a junior colleague, by a student, or by a professional competitor.

Where contact details are available, the journal will normally acknowledge receipt within 7 calendar days and, where feasible, provide a preliminary process update within 21 calendar days. These timeframes are indicative rather than absolute and may be extended where a matter is unusually complex, evidence-dependent, or subject to institutional or legal processes.

Initial Assessment and Case Handling

The journal will normally handle allegations in the following sequence: receipt and logging of the concern; preliminary assessment of specificity, credibility, seriousness, and supporting material; decision on whether to seek clarification, additional documentation, expert input, or temporary editorial measures; and decision on whether institutional or inter-journal referral is required.

The Editor-in-Chief is ordinarily responsible for the initial editorial receipt and logging of the concern. The CRC provides independent oversight of ethics and integrity issues and may review the matter separately from routine editorial handling. Where a matter cannot be resolved at journal or college level, or where broader institutional handling is required, the Research Officer (RO) may coordinate institutional correspondence and reporting in consultation with the CRC. Where necessary and appropriate under University procedures, the matter may be escalated through the Research and Development Division (R&DD) and, as relevant, to the Research and Innovation Committee (RIC), the Academic Board (AB), the University Council (UC), or other competent University bodies.

The journal may make editorial and publication-integrity determinations for its own processes, but it does not substitute for a formal institutional employer investigation or disciplinary process. Where questions extend beyond the journal’s editorial remit, the matter may be referred to the appropriate institution or competent body.

Any editor, reviewer, or adviser with a relevant conflict of interest must recuse themselves from the handling of the matter. A conflicted individual must not influence receipt, reviewer selection, correspondence, evidence assessment, institutional contact, or final decision-making. The journal may appoint an alternative editor or seek additional independent oversight where needed to ensure fairness, impartiality, and confidentiality.

Logging, Documentation, and Confidentiality

All allegations will be logged with the date received, manuscript or article identifier where applicable, the nature of the concern, the source of the concern where known, and any supporting material provided. The journal will keep a confidential record of key communications, evidence received, actions taken, and decisions reached.

The journal will handle allegations as confidentially as reasonably possible. However, complete confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where disclosure is necessary for fair assessment, institutional referral, legal compliance, protection of participants, protection of the scholarly record, or other legitimate investigatory purposes. Where appropriate, the journal will explain these limits to the complainant or whistleblower.

Supporting Information and Evidence

Persons raising concerns are encouraged to provide as much specific information and supporting material as possible, including manuscript identifiers, article citations, screenshots, documents, correspondence, similarity evidence, image concerns, or a clear explanation of the suspected problem. A concern will not be rejected solely because the complainant cannot provide complete proof at the outset, provided that the concern appears credible and sufficiently specific to justify preliminary assessment.

Communication with Authors, Institutions, and Other Journals

Where the journal considers it appropriate to contact an author’s institution, employer, ethics committee, funder, publisher, or another journal, the matter will normally be reviewed first by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the CRC. Such contact will generally be considered where the matter involves substantial concerns about fabrication, falsification, manipulated peer review, serious authorship disputes that cannot reasonably be resolved internally, major ethical approval or consent concerns, repeated misconduct, or other cases where institutional or inter-journal action may be necessary to protect the scholarly record. Where institutional coordination is required, the Research Officer may correspond and report in consultation with the CRC and in accordance with University procedures.

Authors will normally be informed before external institutional or inter-journal contact is made, unless the journal reasonably believes that prior notice may compromise evidence, create a risk of concealment, intimidation, or retaliation, breach a legal or safeguarding duty, or otherwise prejudice the fair handling of the case. The journal may share only such information as is reasonably necessary for assessment, referral, or protection of the scholarly record. Material communications with institutions and other journals will be documented through email correspondence sent from editorbjbm.gcbs@rub.edu.bt and copied to bjbm.gcbs@rub.edu.bt, or through an alternative conflict-free route where required.

Whistleblowers and Anonymous Allegations

The journal welcomes good-faith concerns raised for the purpose of protecting research integrity and the scholarly record. The journal will consider anonymous allegations on their merits and will not dismiss them solely because the complainant’s identity is unknown. Where contact details are available, the journal will normally acknowledge receipt in line with the indicative timelines stated above and may request clarification or additional information where needed.

The journal will assess anonymous or named allegations according to the specificity, credibility, seriousness, and supporting material available. The journal may close a matter without further action where the allegation is too vague to assess, unsupported after reasonable preliminary review, plainly frivolous, abusive, or intentionally malicious. However, the journal will not reject a concern merely because it is strongly expressed or because the complainant has a professional interest in the matter.

The journal will seek to avoid retaliatory treatment of any person who raises a concern in good faith. This includes avoiding adverse editorial treatment, unnecessary disclosure of identity, dismissive handling based solely on status or source, or other avoidable prejudice to a complainant, whistleblower, reviewer, junior co-author, student, or staff member who has raised a credible concern.

At the same time, the journal may limit what it discloses to a complainant or whistleblower in order to protect confidentiality, privacy, due process, legal obligations, or the integrity of any investigation. Where appropriate and feasible, the journal may inform the complainant or whistleblower that the matter has been received, is under consideration, has been referred, or has been closed, but the journal is not obliged to provide full investigatory details, internal correspondence, or institutional communications.

Outcomes and Corrective Action

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the concern, the journal may take one or more proportionate actions, including requesting clarification or correction, pausing review or publication, rejecting the manuscript, publishing a correction, expression of concern, or retraction, notifying institutions or other relevant bodies, restricting future submissions or review activity for an appropriate period, or taking any other measure reasonably necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Concerns About Data Integrity, Fabrication, or Falsification

Where substantial concerns arise regarding the authenticity, completeness, consistency, provenance, or integrity of reported data, images, analyses, or supporting records, the journal may request underlying data, analytic files, code, audit trails, documentation, or other supporting material reasonably necessary for editorial assessment. If the concern cannot be adequately resolved through clarification or documentation, the journal may pause review or publication, seek expert assessment, or refer the matter for institutional consideration in accordance with the journal’s Research Integrity and Ethical Oversight procedures.

Contact

Questions or concerns regarding research ethics or publication misconduct should normally be sent to editorbjbm.gcbs@rub.edu.bt and copied to crc.gcbs@rub.edu.bt. If the concern directly involves the Editor-in-Chief or another normal recipient, it should instead be sent to crc.gcbs@rub.edu.bt and bjbm.gcbs@rub.edu.bt.

Plagiarism, Redundant Publication, and Originality Policy

BJBM expects all submissions to be original, properly attributed, and honestly presented.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:

• direct copying without quotation or attribution;
• close paraphrase or patchwriting without adequate acknowledgement;
• misleading appropriation of ideas, arguments, methods, data, or structures;
• presentation of another person’s work as one’s own; and
• reuse that misleads editors, reviewers, or readers about originality.

Redundant Publication and Duplicate Submission

The journal does not permit the same or substantially overlapping work to be submitted simultaneously to multiple journals or publication venues. Redundant publication, salami publication, or fragmented publication that materially misleads the scholarly record may also constitute misconduct.

Prior Dissemination, Prior Publication, and Text Recycling

BJBM distinguishes between acceptable prior dissemination with disclosure, unacceptable prior publication, and borderline cases that require editorial review before or at submission. Authors must disclose all materially related prior public versions, translations, repository deposits, conference outputs, reports, or media publications that overlap with the submitted work.

Acceptable Prior Dissemination with Disclosure

Subject to proper disclosure, citation, transparency about overlap, and any applicable copyright position, the journal will normally consider work that has previously appeared only as a thesis or dissertation, a preprint or working paper, a conference abstract, a poster, an oral presentation, classroom or seminar materials, or a repository deposit that does not amount to prior formal publication of substantially the same article.

Unacceptable Prior Publication

The journal will not normally consider material that has already been formally published as the same or substantially the same journal article, book chapter, full conference proceeding paper, translated publication, professional article, or other public output where the overlap is so extensive that the BJBM submission would not be meaningfully original. Undisclosed duplicate submission, redundant publication, and substantial self-plagiarism may lead to rejection or other editorial action.

Borderline Cases Requiring Disclosure and Editorial Approval

Some outputs require case-specific editorial assessment, including full conference papers, institutional or policy reports, consultancy reports, public technical reports, substantially overlapping working papers, translated or adapted versions of prior work, and manuscripts derived from previously disseminated book chapters or professional articles. In such cases, authors should disclose the prior output at submission, explain what is new, identify the extent of overlap, and seek editorial guidance where doubt exists.

Text recycling must be limited, transparent, and justified. Even where prior dissemination is acceptable, authors must not mislead editors, reviewers, or readers about the originality of the submission. Questions about permissions for third-party material are governed by the journal’s Copyright Policy and permissions requirements.

Similarity Screening

BJBM may use iThenticate or other similarity-detection tools together with editorial judgment. Similarity percentages are interpreted in context; no fixed numerical threshold alone determines the editorial outcome.

Editorial Response

Where originality concerns are identified, the journal may:

• request explanation or revision;
• decline to review further;
• reject the submission;
• pause review pending clarification;
• contact institutions where appropriate; or
• take post-publication action if the issue is discovered after publication.

Author Responsibility

Authors remain responsible for ensuring proper citation, accurate quotation, fair paraphrase, transparent cross-reference to prior related work, and lawful reuse of all material included in the submission. Lawful reuse of third-party text, figures, tables, instruments, images, or other protected content may still require permission, licence compliance, acknowledgement, or other rights clearance where required.

Corrections, Expressions of Concern, Retractions, and Post-Publication Discussion

BJBM is committed to maintaining the accuracy, integrity, and transparency of the scholarly record. Where concerns arise about a submitted, accepted, or published work, the journal will assess the matter carefully, fairly, confidentially, and in proportion to the seriousness of the issue. The journal will not silently alter the scholarly record except in exceptional legal or safety circumstances.

Purpose

This policy explains how BJBM handles:

• minor and major corrections;
• corrigenda and errata;
• expressions of concern;
• retractions;
• article removals or temporary takedowns in exceptional cases; and
• post-publication correspondence and discussion.

Corrections

A correction may be issued where part of a published article is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or improperly presented, but the core findings and overall reliability of the article remain substantially intact. Examples may include errors in:

• author names, affiliations, funding statements, acknowledgements, or ORCID details;
• references, tables, figures, labels, legends, or supplementary files;
• wording that requires clarification but does not invalidate the study; or
• metadata associated with the publication.

Minor publisher-introduced errors may be corrected promptly. Substantive corrections affecting interpretation will be recorded formally through a dated correction notice linked to the article.

Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued where BJBM has serious, credible concerns about the integrity, legality, ethical basis, or reliability of a publication but does not yet have sufficient evidence to reach a final outcome. This may occur, for example, where:

• an institutional or funder investigation is ongoing;
• key evidence is unavailable or delayed;
• there is reason to believe the findings may be unreliable; or
• allegations are serious but not yet resolved.

Expressions of Concern are interim notices and do not prejudge the final outcome.

Retractions

A retraction may be issued where the article is shown to be seriously unreliable or seriously in breach of publication standards. Grounds may include:

• major error invalidating the work;
• fabrication, falsification, or material misrepresentation of data or results;
• plagiarism or substantial unattributed overlap;
• duplicate or redundant publication that materially misleads the record;
• unethical research or serious lack of required permissions or approvals;
• manipulated or compromised peer review;
• unlawful publication of material; or
• other serious misconduct or integrity breach.

Retraction is not used merely because a paper is controversial, because readers disagree with its interpretation, or because authors later regret publication.

Removals and Exceptional Takedowns

BJBM will preserve the published record wherever possible. Article removal, replacement, or temporary takedown will be considered only in exceptional circumstances, such as clear legal risk, court order, serious defamation, grave privacy violation, or immediate safety concerns. Where content must be removed, the journal will leave a transparent public notice in place wherever legally possible.

Assessment Process

Concerns may be raised by authors, reviewers, readers, editors, institutions, whistleblowers, or other parties. BJBM may:

• seek explanation from the corresponding author and, where appropriate, all authors;
• consult reviewers, editorial board members, subject experts, or the publisher;
• request supporting documentation, raw data, ethics approvals, consent documentation, or permissions;
• contact relevant institutions, employers, ethics committees, or funders where necessary; and
• pause publication or related editorial action while a matter is under review.

The journal will avoid prejudging the outcome. Where appropriate, authors will be given a fair opportunity to respond before a final decision is made.

Notices and Transparency

All formal post-publication notices will:

• be clearly labelled;
• identify the affected article precisely;
• explain the reason for the action in neutral, factual language;
• be linked bidirectionally to the original publication;
• be free to access; and
• remain permanently part of the scholarly record.

Retracted articles will normally remain available with clear marking in the HTML version, PDF, metadata, and article landing page. BJBM does not support silent correction or silent deletion of published scholarly content.

Author-Initiated Withdrawal Requests

Authors may request withdrawal before publication, but BJBM may refuse withdrawal where there are unresolved integrity concerns or where editorial or production processes have already advanced substantially. After publication, removal is not an author right and will be assessed under this policy.

Post-Publication Discussion

BJBM welcomes good-faith scholarly correspondence after publication. Any reader may write to the journal to raise concerns, propose clarifications, or submit substantiated critiques. Post-publication correspondence should normally be sent within 5 years of publication, although the journal may consider later submissions where the concern is serious, evidence-based, or relevant to the integrity, legality, or ethics of the scholarly record.

Post-publication comments should normally be sent to editorbjbm.gcbs@rub.edu.bt and copied to crc.gcbs@rub.edu.bt. Where the comment concerns the Editor-in-Chief directly, it should instead be sent to crc.gcbs@rub.edu.bt.

Where a post-publication comment raises a substantive interpretive, methodological, evidentiary, or record-affecting issue, the journal may invite a response from the authors. Where the matter is severe, credible, or potentially record-affecting, the journal will normally seek an author response before deciding whether to publish correspondence, issue a notice, or open a formal correction or integrity review.

The journal may publish correspondence, responses, scholarly discussion, or editorial notes where appropriate, but it is not obliged to publish every submitted comment. The journal may decline to publish commentary while still considering the substance privately, including where the submission is unsupported, repetitive, abusive, legally risky, outside the journal’s remit, or better addressed through formal correction or misconduct procedures.

An editorial note is a signed journal-issued notice used to clarify context, explain procedure, or alert readers to a limited issue that does not by itself justify a correction, expression of concern, or retraction. An expression of concern is reserved for serious and credible concerns about the reliability, integrity, legality, or ethics of a publication where the matter is unresolved or an investigation is ongoing.

BJBM may also publish scholarly discussion or author responses where alternative interpretations of published data, methods, arguments, or evidence arise, even where no misconduct is alleged and no correction is required. Post-publication debate must remain evidence-based, professional, and legally responsible.

Contact

Concerns about published content should normally be sent to editorbjbm.gcbs@rub.edu.bt and copied to crc.gcbs@rub.edu.bt. Concerns that directly involve the Editor-in-Chief should instead be sent to crc.gcbs@rub.edu.bt.

Editorial Board Policy

BJBM is supported by an editorial structure designed to uphold scholarly quality, editorial integrity, and responsible journal development.

Editorial Roles

The journal may include, as applicable:

• Editor-in-Chief;
• Managing Editor;
• Associate Editors or Section Editors;
• Editorial Board Members;
• Advisory Board Members; and
• Guest Editors for approved Special Issues.

Public Information

The journal will identify editorial leaders and board members publicly with their names, affiliations, and roles, subject to operational practicality and consent.

Responsibilities

Editorial board members may contribute through:

• strategic advice on journal development;
• support for scholarly standards;
• occasional peer review or reviewer recommendation;
• promotion of the journal’s academic profile; and
• informed advice on scope, policy, and quality.

Board membership does not by itself confer authority to make editorial decisions on manuscripts unless a specific formal editorial role has been assigned.

Standards of Conduct

Board members are expected to uphold the journal’s standards on confidentiality, fairness, conflict management, professional conduct, and publication ethics.

Conflicts and Board-Authored Submissions

Submissions by board members must be handled under the journal’s conflict-of-interest procedures. Board members must not exploit their position to influence the handling or outcome of their own manuscripts.

Appointment and Review

Appointments are made by the journal or publisher according to the journal’s governance arrangements. The journal may review board composition periodically to ensure relevance, activity, diversity of expertise, and continued suitability.

Removal or Change of Role

The journal may revise, conclude, or withdraw appointments where there is prolonged inactivity, unresolved conflict, misconduct, reputational risk, or strategic need.

Open Access, Article Processing Charges, Revenue Sources, and Commercial Independence

BJBM is committed to transparent, fair, and non-exploitative publishing.

Open Access

BJBM is a fully open access journal. All published articles are made freely and permanently available online immediately upon publication, subject to the journal’s licensing terms.

Fees and Charges

BJBM does not charge:

• article processing charges (APCs);
• submission fees;
• review fees;
• publication fees;
• page charges;
• colour figure charges; or
• fees for standard supplementary materials.

If this position changes, the journal will update this page clearly before any new fees are introduced.

Revenue and Financial Support

The journal’s publication and hosting costs are supported by Gedu College of Business Studies, Royal University of Bhutan. Financial support does not confer editorial influence or priority.

Editorial Independence

Editorial and peer-review decisions are made independently of financial considerations and are based solely on scholarly merit, relevance, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and suitability for the journal.

Sponsorship and Commercial Influence

Any sponsorship, partnership, or external support arrangement must not compromise editorial independence. Sponsored content, if ever used, will be clearly labelled and will remain subject to the journal’s editorial standards.

Advertising Policy

BJBM does not permit advertising or commercial messaging to influence editorial decisions. If advertising is accepted in future, the journal will distinguish advertising clearly from editorial content and will publish a separate advertising policy.

Optional Editorial Support Services

Where authors request optional language editing, copyediting, or technical preparation support outside the ordinary editorial process, any such service will be entirely voluntary, clearly separated from editorial evaluation, and will have no effect on peer review or acceptance decisions.

Indexing, Abstracting, Metadata, and Archiving

BJBM is committed to accurate discoverability claims, persistent metadata, and long-term preservation of the scholarly record.

Principle of Accurate Claims

The journal will list only services, databases, indexes, directories, and preservation arrangements that currently and verifiably include the journal or its content. Aspirational targets or pending applications will not be presented as achieved coverage.

Current Indexing and Abstracting

The journal’s currently confirmed indexing, abstracting, or directory coverage is: [to include the indexing services]

Metadata and Identifiers

BJBM aims to maintain accurate article metadata, including titles, abstracts, keywords, authorship details, licensing information, issue assignment, pagination or article identifiers where used, and DOI or other persistent identifiers where applicable.

Preservation and Archiving

The journal is committed to long-term accessibility and preservation of its published content. Preservation arrangements may include institutional archiving, PKP PN, LOCKSS, CLOCKSS, repository deposit, backup systems, or other preservation services actually in place.

Corrections to Records

Where indexing metadata, licensing information, author details, or article records require correction, the journal will update them responsibly and transparently.

Discoverability

The journal seeks broad lawful discoverability through good metadata practice, ethical indexing applications, persistent identifiers, search-engine visibility, and transparent publication information.

Complaints and Appeals Policy

BJBM provides a fair and transparent process for handling complaints and appeals relating to editorial procedures, peer review, delays, ethics handling, professional conduct, and publication decisions.

Scope

This policy applies to complaints and appeals concerning:

• editorial conduct or communication;
• reviewer conduct;
• journal staff conduct, including delay, unresponsiveness, misuse of privileged information, or breaches of confidentiality;
• procedural fairness in manuscript handling;
• delay or administrative concerns;
• conflicts of interest;
• publication ethics handling;
• corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or editorial notices; and
• editorial decisions, where an appeal is permitted under this policy.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

An author may appeal an editorial decision where the author believes that the decision involved a material error of fact, a material misunderstanding of the manuscript, a significant procedural irregularity, a failure to consider relevant evidence, or a serious concern regarding fairness in editorial handling. An appeal must be based on substantive grounds and not on mere disagreement with the journal’s academic judgment.

Appeals should be submitted in writing within 30 days of the decision unless the journal permits otherwise in exceptional circumstances. The appeal should identify the manuscript, state the grounds clearly, and explain why the decision should be reconsidered.

An appeal will normally be considered by an editor who was not materially involved in the original decision, or by the Editor-in-Chief where appropriate. The journal may uphold the original decision, invite further editorial consideration, obtain an additional review, or take another proportionate step considered appropriate. The outcome of the appeal will be communicated with reasons. The journal reserves the right to treat the appeal decision as final.

Complaints

Complaints may be raised about the conduct of the journal, editors, reviewers, board members, journal staff, publisher, or processes. This includes, for example, alleged confidentiality breaches, misuse of privileged information, undeclared conflicts of interest, serious unresponsiveness, or other procedural or professional concerns. The journal will consider complaints respectfully and without retaliation.

How to Submit

Complaints and appeals should normally be submitted in writing to editorbjbm.gcbs@rub.edu.bt.

The submission should include:

• the manuscript or article title and reference number where relevant;
• a clear explanation of the concern;
• any supporting evidence or documentation; and
• the remedy or outcome sought, where appropriate.

Alternative Contact and Escalation Route

If the complaint or appeal concerns the Editor-in-Chief, another editor, a reviewer, or journal staff, or if the complainant reasonably believes that the normal contact route is conflicted, the matter should instead be sent to the College Research Committee (CRC) at crc.gcbs@rub.edu.bt. The CRC may coordinate a conflict-free handling route, designate an appropriate alternative decision-maker, or recommend that the matter be considered under the journal’s Research Integrity and Ethical Oversight policy, Corrections and Retractions policy, or another relevant procedure.

Initial Handling

The journal will acknowledge receipt within seven working days and will assess whether the matter falls within the journal’s remit. The journal may ask for clarification or additional information. In serious, high-risk, institutionally sensitive, or legally sensitive matters, the journal may seek independent expert advice, institutional input, or legal advice before deciding how to proceed.

Decision-Making and Conflicts

Complaints and appeals will be reviewed by an editor or journal representative not materially conflicted in the matter. Where the Editor-in-Chief is directly involved, or where a complaint concerns an editor, reviewer, or journal staff member, the matter should be referred through the CRC to an appropriate alternative decision-maker or oversight route designated by the journal or publisher.

Possible Outcomes

Depending on the issue, the journal may:

• uphold the original decision;
• seek further editorial or reviewer input;
• reopen review;
• revise a decision;
• apologise and correct a process failure;
• take conduct-related action; or
• decline the complaint or appeal with reasons.

Limits of the Appeal Process

The journal’s primary role is to manage the editorial process fairly and, where necessary, correct the scholarly record. The journal is not an arbitration body for disputes that fall primarily within institutional, contractual, employment, disciplinary, funding, or legal jurisdiction, although it may refer such matters appropriately to institutions, employers, funders, or other competent bodies.

Abusive or Repetitive Correspondence

The journal will consider concerns in good faith, but abusive, threatening, defamatory, or repetitive vexatious correspondence may be managed proportionately and may not receive ongoing substantive response.

Appeals Distinguished from Misconduct Allegations

An appeal challenges an editorial decision on substantive or procedural grounds. An allegation of misconduct concerns potential research, publication, review, editorial, or staff misconduct and is handled under the journal’s Research Integrity and Ethical Oversight policy. Questions about corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or editorial notices are addressed under the journal’s Corrections and Post-Publication Review procedures. Where a submission raises both an appeal and a misconduct concern, the journal will separate or sequence the two processes as it considers appropriate.

Finality

The journal will designate a decision as final after reasonable review under this policy.