Peer Reviewing Process

BJET Peer Review Process

Model. BJET uses double-blind peer review — reviewers don't normally know author identities, and authors don't know reviewer identities. Manuscripts should be prepared to minimize identifying information, and reviewer identities stay confidential unless disclosure is legally or procedurally required.

Step 1 — Initial editorial screening (6.1). Every submission is assessed by the editorial team before it goes to external review. This checks:

  • Fit with the journal's aims and scope
  • Originality and scholarly contribution
  • Compliance with submission requirements and manuscript completeness
  • Ethical requirements and plagiarism/similarity concerns
  • Conflicts of interest
  • Language, presentation, and methodology
  • Overall suitability for peer review

A manuscript can be desk-rejected here — without external review — if it's clearly out of scope, fails essential requirements, raises serious ethical concerns, or doesn't meet the minimum standard for review. A desk rejection does not imply misconduct unless an integrity issue is actually established.

Step 2 — Reviewer selection (6.2). Manuscripts that pass screening normally go to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers must not be part of the editorial team deciding the manuscript. Authors may suggest reviewers, but the editorial team makes the final choice, weighing expertise, independence, availability, conflicts of interest, past review performance, and diversity of expertise where possible.

Step 3 — Reviewer evaluation (6.3). Reviewers assess manuscripts objectively and constructively against: originality, relevance and significance, technical/scientific quality, methodology, analysis, results, interpretation, clarity, references, ethical compliance, and overall contribution. They're expected to clearly separate major concerns from minor corrections.

Step 4 — Editorial decision (6.4). Based on the manuscript and reviewer reports, the editorial team issues one of: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Reviewer recommendations are advisory — the final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor.

Step 5 — Revision (6.5). If revision is requested, authors submit a revised manuscript plus a point-by-point response to reviewer and editorial comments. Depending on how extensive the changes are, the revision goes back to the original reviewers or is evaluated directly by the editor.

Exceptions (6.6). Certain article types or editorial content may follow a different review process, at the Editor-in-Chief's discretion, with this clearly indicated in the published article or journal information where relevant. BJET doesn't guarantee acceptance or a fixed review timeline.

Reviewer conduct Reviewers must keep manuscripts strictly confidential and treat them as privileged documents; give objective, constructive comments; flag relevant uncited published work; disclose their own conflicts of interest; decline if they lack expertise or time; never use unpublished material for personal or professional advantage; and promptly report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, or falsification. They must not upload confidential manuscripts to external generative AI or similar systems.