accessJPBH follows a double-blind peer review process, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation. This widely accepted model supports an unbiased and objective assessment of scholarly work, upholding the scientific integrity of the journal.
We regard peer review as a cornerstone of quality assurance in academic publishing. Reviewers are tasked with assessing the scientific merit, originality, relevance, and clarity of manuscripts, and providing constructive feedback to assist the editorial team in decision-making. While reviewers may offer suggestions, they are not responsible for rewriting submissions.
All reviewers are expected to:
- Offer fair, respectful, and evidence-based evaluations
- Disclose any conflicts of interest
- Adhere to the deadline specified in the review invitation
1. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, each manuscript is initially reviewed by a member of the editorial team to assess its suitability for further peer review. Possible outcomes at this stage include:
- Formatting Issues: Strict formatting of manuscript is not required for primary submission and review.
- Scope or Quality Mismatch: Submissions outside the journal’s scope or those not meeting basic academic standards are desk-rejected.
- Qualified for Review: Manuscripts meeting all preliminary criteria are forwarded to an Associate or Academic Editor for formal peer review initiation.
2. Peer Review Process
- A minimum of two expert reviewers are invited through the journal’s online submission system.
- The invitation includes the manuscript’s title and abstract for preliminary evaluation.
- Upon accepting the invitation, reviewers receive access to the full manuscript and are typically given two weeks to complete the review.
- Reviewer identities remain confidential unless voluntarily disclosed by the reviewer in their comments.
3. Post-Review Evaluation
Once peer review is complete:
- The Associate Editor reviews the feedback and the revised manuscript (if applicable).
- Based on the reviewers’ reports and editorial judgment, a recommendation is made to the Editor-in-Chief or a delegated senior editor.
- Authors are informed of the final editorial decision after all reviews are received and considered.
4. Editorial Decision Categories
- Accept – with or without minor editorial revisions
- Minor or Major Revisions Required – with a revision period of 1 to 3 weeks
- Reject – due to lack of novelty, methodological issues, or misalignment with the journal's focus
*Appeal Process:
In cases where a manuscript is rejected, the corresponding author has the right to appeal the decision. To initiate an appeal, the author must submit a formal written request to the editorial office within One weeks of receiving the decision letter. The appeal must clearly state the reasons for contesting the decision and include any supporting information or responses to reviewer comments.
Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, potentially in consultation with additional board members not involved in the original decision. The outcome of the appeal will be final.
Estimated Timeline: The entire process from initial submission to final decision generally takes 4–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and response time.
All stages of submission, review, and editorial communication are managed through the journal’s online platform.
5. After Acceptance
Once a manuscript is provisionally accepted:
- The corresponding author is notified and asked to complete the publication fee payment (*if applicable) within 7 days.
- The manuscript undergoes professional English language editing.
- A formatted galley proof (PDF) is sent to the author, who must return corrections within 2 days.
- Following the author’s corrections, the Editor-in-Chief conducts a final quality check.
- A DOI is assigned, and the article is published Online First.
Post-Publication Corrections: Minor errors (e.g., typos) may be corrected within 3 days of online publication. Major changes, including those to the title, author list, or affiliations, will not be permitted at this stage.
Final versions are scheduled for publication in an upcoming issue with designated volume and page numbers.
Note: Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the final published version.
6. Editorial Board: Roles and Selection
The Editorial Board ensures the journal maintains high academic standards and scientific relevance. Board members contribute to strategic development, review oversight, and community engagement.
Responsibilities Include:
- Advising on journal policy and scope
- Reviewing manuscripts and assisting in editorial decisions
- Recommending reviewers and new board members
- Promoting the journal within academic networks
- Suggesting and managing special issues
Selection Process: Board members are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the publisher. The board is reviewed every two years, with options for reappointment, resignation, or new appointments.
Selection Criteria:
- Subject-matter expertise aligned with the journal’s focus
- Diversity in institutional and geographical representation
- Proven academic record and peer-review or editorial experience
7. Conflicts of Interest
All editorial participants must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including but not limited to:
- Recent co-authorship or collaboration with the authors
- Shared institutional affiliations
- Financial interests in the manuscript’s subject
- Personal relationships that may bias judgment
Editors with a conflict must recuse themselves from the editorial process. They are also responsible for evaluating conflicts declared by authors or reviewers.
Reviewers should decline invitations if they:
- Have co-authored publications with any author within the past 12 months
- Share a current or recent institutional affiliation
- Have financial stakes in the manuscript’s outcomes
- Are engaged in ongoing collaborations with the authors
- Have personal connections that may compromise impartiality
- Cannot maintain objectivity
8. Confidentiality
Strict confidentiality is upheld throughout the review and editorial process:
- Reviewers must not share or discuss manuscripts without editorial approval.
- Editorial staff must not disclose manuscript content or decisions outside of the review process.
- Reviewer identities remain confidential unless the reviewer chooses to disclose their identity.
- Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished material for personal research.