Peer Review Policy

Review Model

JBRES uses double-blind peer review for all submitted manuscripts. All reviewing is conducted by independent subject-matter experts with no conflicts of interest with the authors or institutions involved.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest. We maintain a global reviewer database and use CrossRef and ORCID to verify reviewer credentials. Authors may suggest reviewers (or request exclusions) in their cover letter — these requests are considered but not guaranteed.

Number of Reviewers & Editorial Decision

Each manuscript sent for review is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers. The handling editor weighs the reviewers' confidential comments and recommendations and makes the editorial decision — accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. A manuscript is never accepted on the strength of a single review, and the final decision always rests with the editor rather than the reviewers alone.

Revisions & Re-review

When revisions are requested, authors receive the consolidated, anonymised reviewer comments in a Peer Review Report and must respond point by point. Revised manuscripts are normally returned to the original reviewers for a further round of double-blind review. A manuscript is accepted only once the reviewers' and editor's concerns have been fully addressed.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript with any third party
• Use ideas or data from the manuscript in their own work before publication
• Disclose that they reviewed the manuscript
• Contact the authors directly during review

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare and immediately step down from any manuscript where they have a conflict of interest, including: current or recent collaboration with any author, employment at the same institution as any author, financial interest in the outcome, or personal relationship with any author.

AI in Peer Review

Reviewers may use AI tools to assist with grammar checking or language editing of their own review text, but may not use AI to generate the substantive content of a review. Reviews must represent the reviewer's own independent scientific judgment.

Review Integrity

JBRES takes review fraud seriously. This includes falsely accepting review invitations, submitting fabricated reviews, or colluding with authors. Evidence of review fraud will result in the removal of the reviewer from our database and may be reported to their institution.

A Documented, Auditable Review Process

The entire editorial workflow is managed through the JBRES Editorial Manager, a dedicated submission-and-review system that records every step for accountability and reproducibility. For each manuscript this includes:

• Pre-quality check (PreQC): a completeness and technical screening before review begins.
• Similarity / plagiarism screening: every submission is screened (including with certified iThenticate reports), and the editor records a documented integrity decision.
• Blinded review copies: reviewers receive an anonymised manuscript so double-blind integrity is preserved throughout.
• Reviewer assignment & reports: invitations, acceptances, due dates, and full reviewer reports and scores are logged.
• Editorial decisions & revisions: every decision, revision round, and author response is stored on the record.
• Complete manuscript history: a full, retrievable audit trail — communications, reports, decisions, and files — is maintained for every submission.

This systematic record-keeping ensures peer review at JBRES is consistent, transparent, and independently verifiable.

Appeals & Complaints

Authors who believe a decision was reached in error may appeal. Appeals are considered by an editor who was not involved in the original decision. Please see our Appeals & Complaints policy for the full procedure.