Peer review

The review model

JPBS uses double-anonymised peer review. Authors anonymise the manuscript file. Reviewers do not see author names; authors do not see reviewer names.

Editors see identities so they can manage competing interests and choose reviewers. The model is a policy, not a claim about speed or about an Impact Factor.

What happens to a submission

Every complete submission is read by an editor for scope, reporting and ethics. Manuscripts that cannot be reviewed as submitted are returned with reasons.

Papers that proceed are sent to reviewers with relevant expertise. The editor, not the reviewers, makes the decision: reject, major revision, minor revision, or accept.

• Editorial assessment — scope, completeness, ethics.
• External review — typically at least two reports when reviewers can be secured.
• Decision — reasoned, and appealable on process, not on taste.

Editorial independence

Editors evaluate manuscripts on scientific merit, relevance, originality and methodological quality. Editorial decisions must remain independent of commercial, financial or other external interests. The publisher must not interfere with acceptance, rejection, peer review or publication.

Decisions must not be influenced by an author’s nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political affiliation, institutional affiliation or other irrelevant personal characteristics.

What authors should expect

You will not be given a guaranteed number of days to first decision. When the journal has a record of completed submissions, those times will be published as derived figures, not as a marketing promise.

Suggested reviewers are welcome; excluded reviewers with a stated reason are considered. The editor is not bound by either list.