Articles within the journal’s five areas are assessed for relevance, study type, methodological validity, and ethical compliance. Expert review should reflect the laboratory, clinical, computational, policy, management, or economic nature of the article.
The article’s connection to one or more journal areas, file completeness, article type, reporting, and required statements are checked. Policy or management studies are not outside scope solely because they lack laboratory data.
Originality, conflicts of interest, rights to sources, confidentiality, required permissions, and data availability are assessed in relation to the study design.
Reviewers are selected for subject knowledge and methodological expertise. Interdisciplinary articles may require additional statistical, economic, legal, or qualitative assessment.
The editor decides in light of the reviewers’ reports. Authors should provide a point-by-point response and revised manuscript. Journal-office deadlines and current policies apply.
Data, protocols, and video content are evaluated in relation to the manuscript. Identifying details should be removed from review files as far as possible. If video or study context makes full anonymization impossible, authors should inform the journal office before review.
After scientific acceptance, the final version, content rights, article statements, and supplementary information are checked and prepared for publication. Publication dates or acceptance are not promised before a scientific decision.
This guide addresses common reviewer questions and supports preparation of double-anonymous review reports, helping ensure that articles are assessed appropriately and published as promptly as possible.
Reviewers may contact the journal office by email with any questions.
Authors have expressed concerns about review and publication times. NBPJ therefore seeks to review and publish manuscripts correctly, fairly, and as promptly as possible.
Reviewers are asked to submit their comments within 14 working days to the journal office.
All submitted articles undergo double-anonymous peer review. Anonymous reviewers support candid and impartial assessments of manuscripts.
The pathway from submission to publication involves several stages of scientific assessment and peer review.
Peer reviewers’ assessments and recommendations provide essential guidance for editorial decisions.
Peer review provides articles with specialist feedback and constructive criticism.
Peer review helps authors improve their manuscripts and supports the publication of higher-quality research.
Peer review helps readers assess confidence in the scientific validity of published articles.
Reviewers should promptly accept or decline invitations to avoid delays in manuscript assessment.
Reviewers should understand conflicts of interest and disclose potential conflicts to the journal office to support a complete, impartial assessment.
Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest to the journal office before beginning their review.
Reviewers must keep author identities and manuscript content confidential and must not disclose manuscript information.
Review comments should be impartial and constructive, without hostility, discrimination, or personal bias.
Reviewers should assess manuscripts solely on scientific quality, methodological validity, and research significance.
Before accepting and undertaking a review, reviewers should read COPE’s ethical guidelines for peer reviewers and follow the relevant principles.
COPE guidance provides further information on peer-review ethics and conflicts of interest.
Through double-anonymous peer review, NBPJ seeks fair, transparent, specialist assessment and the timely dissemination of high-quality research.
