Peer review policy
Double-anonymised review. The editor decides. Reviewers do not see one another’s reports.
The review model
JPBS operates double-anonymised peer review. The anonymised manuscript is what reviewers see. Title pages, cover letters and author identities stay with the editors.
Typically at least two reports are sought when reviewers can be secured. One report may suffice for a decision to reject after editorial assessment, or when a specialist report answers the only open question. The editor is not bound to wait for a quota.
From invitation to decision
The author submits. An editor checks scope, reporting completeness and ethics. Manuscripts that cannot be reviewed as submitted are returned with reasons, without external review.
If the manuscript proceeds, reviewers are invited. They accept or decline. Those who accept receive the anonymised files, write comments to the authors, optional confidential comments to the editor, and a recommendation.
The editor decides: reject, major revision, minor revision, or accept. Reviewers do not see one another’s identities or reports. Authors see the decision and the comments written for them, not the confidential editor box.
Who sees what
Reviewers: anonymised manuscript, figures, supplementary files, their own report.
Authors: the decision, comments addressed to them, not reviewer names.
Editors: identities, competing-interest declarations, all reports, and notes they write for the file.
The public: nothing of an unpublished manuscript. After publication, the article is the public record — not the reports.
Appeals and transfers
Authors may appeal on process or on a misunderstanding of the science. The original reviewers are not automatically re-used. JPBS does not operate a transfer network with other titles.