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.