Peer Review Policy

JBAEM's peer review policy: the double-blind review model, reviewer selection and confidentiality, editorial decisions, and the appeals process.

2.1. Overview

  • JBAEM applies rigorous peer review to all original research, reviews, case reports, and other scholarly content.
  • Editorial decisions are based on:
    • Scientific quality
    • Ethical soundness
    • Methodological robustness
    • Relevance to the journal's scope and readership

2.2. Peer Review Model and Workflow

Peer-review model:

JBAEM generally uses double-blind peer review, in which:

  • Reviewers do not know the authors' identities.
  • Authors do not know the reviewers' identities.

Number of reviewers:

  • Typically at least two independent expert reviewers are invited per manuscript.
  • Additional reviewers or statistical reviewers may be invited when needed.

Standard workflow:

  1. 1. Initial editorial screening

    The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor screens all submissions for:

    • Fit with the scope of the journal
    • Basic scientific quality and clarity
    • Compliance with ethical and reporting requirements
    • Completeness of required declarations and forms
    • Plagiarism or duplicate submission

    Manuscripts may be desk-rejected at this stage if clearly unsuitable.

  2. 2. Technical checks

    • Verification of metadata, required declarations, and formatting.
    • Plagiarism and AI-generated content screening using PlagiarismCheck.org.
    • Verification of clinical trial registration (where applicable).

  3. 3. External peer review

    • Suitable manuscripts are sent to external expert reviewers.
    • Reviewers are selected based on expertise, track record, and absence of conflicts of interest.
    • Reviewers are asked to assess: Originality and importance, Methodological rigor, Clarity and completeness of reporting, Ethical conduct and data integrity as well as relevance to JBAEM's readership.

  4. 4. Decision and revisions

    Based on reviewers' reports and their own assessment, editors may:

    • Accept the manuscript
    • Request minor or major revisions
    • Invite resubmission as a new manuscript
    • Reject the manuscript

    For revised manuscripts, editors may make a decision based on authors' responses or seek further peer review as needed.

  5. 5. Final acceptance and production

    • Once accepted, manuscripts move into copyediting, typesetting, and proof production.
    • Authors are given an opportunity to review and correct proofs before publication.

Conflicting reviews:

When reviews are strongly divergent, the editor may seek an additional independent review, and/or make a decision balancing the arguments and evidence provided.

Timelines:

JBAEM aims to provide timely decisions while maintaining rigorous review. The average time between submission and final acceptance or rejection rarely exceed 12 weeks. Target timelines for initial decisions and revisions are communicated on the journal website and may vary by article type.

Confidentiality:

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not share or use unpublished data.

2.3. Editorial Responsibilities

Editors must:

  • Ensure fair and unbiased review.
  • Base decisions solely on importance, originality, and scientific integrity.
  • Maintain confidentiality of submissions.
  • Declare and appropriately manage conflicts of interest.
  • Correct the scholarly record when necessary (e.g., through corrections, clarifications, retractions).
  • Treat all authors, reviewers, and complainants respectfully and fairly.

2.4. Peer Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscripts and related correspondence.
  • Provide objective, evidence-based, and constructive critique.
  • Identify relevant published work that has not been cited.
  • Disclose any conflicts of interest that may bias their review.
  • Refrain from using unpublished material in a submitted manuscript for personal advantage.

2.5. Appeals of Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal editorial decisions under specific circumstances.

Who may appeal:

The corresponding author, on behalf of all co-authors, may submit an appeal.

What decisions may be appealed:

  • Decisions made after external peer review (e.g., reject after review).
  • Desk rejections are generally not subject to appeal unless clear errors are identified.

Time limit:

Appeals must usually be submitted within 1 month of the decision notification.

Content of an appeal:

A clear, detailed letter explaining:

  • Why the authors believe the decision should be reconsidered.
  • Specific points of disagreement with reviewers or editors.
  • Supporting evidence (e.g., additional analyses, clarifications, or corrections).

Grounds that do not justify an appeal:

  • Mere disagreement with the journal's assessment of novelty, interest, or scope.
  • Requests to override reviewers' or editors' scientific judgment without new substantive evidence.

Process:

  • Appeals are handled by an editor who was not primarily responsible for the original decision, where possible.
  • Additional expert advice may be sought.
  • The outcome may be: Upholding the original decision, or Reconsidering the manuscript (with or without further peer review).

Limits:

  • Only one appeal per manuscript is permitted.
  • Reconsideration of a manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

2.6. Use of AI in Editorial Processes

JBAEM may use artificial intelligence (AI) tools to assist with editorial processes without manipulating the scientific contents. These tools are used to enhance efficiency and quality while maintaining human oversight of all decisions.

AI-Assisted Processes:

  • Plagiarism Detection: All submitted manuscripts are screened using PlagiarismCheck.org to identify potential textual overlap with existing publications and unpublished works.
  • AI-Generated Content Detection: JBAEM uses PlagiarismCheck.org to detect AI-generated text in submitted manuscripts. This helps ensure the authenticity and integrity of scholarly work by identifying content that may have been produced by large language models or other AI writing tools.
  • Image and Figure Screening: AI tools may be used to detect potential image manipulation, duplication, or deepfake content in submitted figures.
  • Reviewer Matching: AI may assist in identifying suitable reviewers based on expertise and availability.
  • Language and Quality Checks: AI tools may be used to assist with language editing and manuscript quality assessment.

Human Oversight:

  • All AI-generated outputs are reviewed by human editors before any action is taken.
  • Final decisions on manuscript acceptance, rejection, or revision are made by human editors.
  • AI tools do not have access to confidential reviewer identities or comments.

Transparency:

Authors will be informed if AI tools identify concerns that require their attention. The journal is committed to transparency about its use of AI in editorial processes.