Peer Review Process

The submitted manuscript will undergo a review process with the explicit understanding that it is exclusively being considered for publication in the BSMMUJ at the present time. The submitted manuscript must not have been published previously, concurrently submitted to other publications, or already accepted for publication elsewhere, either in part or in its entirety in any form of language. Upon receipt, all manuscripts will receive a formal acknowledgment of submission.

Review criteria

Manuscripts submitted in BSMMUJ are evaluated according to the following criteria:

Originality and timeliness of the content.
Clarity and adherence to the guidelines for authors in the writing of the manuscript.
Appropriate use of study methods.
Validity of the data presented.
Reasonable and well-supported conclusions drawn from the data.
The significance, relevance, and medically importance of the information provided in the manuscript.

Peer review model

BSMMUJ uses single anonymised (which means the identity of the peer reviewer is kept confidential, but the author’s identity is made known to the reviewer) or open (if reviewer wishes to disclose the identity to the author) peer review process.

Initial screening after submission

Upon submission, the editorial office conducts an initial assessment of all received manuscripts to determine their suitability for formal review. Manuscripts lacking originality, significant scientific or technical merit, substantial message, adherence to the submission criteria are promptly rejected before proceeding to the formal peer-review process. Additionally, manuscripts that may not align with the scope of the BSMMUJ are also susceptible to rejection at this preliminary stage.

Manuscripts that pass the initial review are forwarded to both internal and external peer reviewers for evaluation.
Note: Editorial team members who are authors of a submitted manuscript are not involved in the publication decision-making process. Their exclusion ensures impartiality and fairness in the review and selection of manuscripts for publication.

Selection of reviewers

Manuscripts deemed suitable for publication in BSMMUJ are typically evaluated by at least two expert reviewers, with additional reviewers consulted when necessary. Authors may suggest two to three qualified reviewers with relevant expertise at the time of submission; however, this is optional, and final selection rests solely with the editor. Suggested reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institution as the author(s).

Reviewers are chosen for their subject expertise and ability to provide constructive, impartial, and high-quality feedback. For research manuscripts, statistical reviewers may also be engaged. All manuscripts under review are treated with strict confidentiality.

Online review system

In order to facilitate a convenient and efficient peer review process, we conduct our peer reviews electronically using the OJS system.

Recognition for reviewers

Peer reviewers are essential to maintaining the credibility and quality of research. BSMMUJ highly values their contributions and seeks to promote high standards of review. As a token of appreciation, the journal publishes an annual list acknowledging the efforts of all reviewers across its publications.

In addition, BSMMUJ provides certificates of review. Reviewers may also receive credit in ORCID by uploading their review information and certificates to their Web of Science profile.

Online publication

Manuscripts accepted for publication undergo copy editing to address grammar, punctuation, print style, and format. The corresponding author receives page proofs and is required to return the corrected proofs. The finalized version of the manuscript will be available on the journal's website.

Peer review flowchart

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial mechanical review within 48 hours for suitability, scope alignment, adherence to author guidelines, and plagiarism check.
Successfully screened manuscripts are sent to the Handling Editor, who assesses scientific quality, novelty, and depth.
If satisfactory, the Handling Editor assigns at least two reviewers or more, typically one subject expert and one methodological/statistical reviewer.
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit constructive, impartial reports in the online system.
The Handling Editor discusses reviewer feedback with the Executive Editor in the weekly board meeting to reach a final decision.
Accepted manuscripts are sent for copyediting.
The copyedited version is returned to the author for final proof correction; only grammatical and typographical changes are allowed at this stage.
The final version is published online.

Peer review considerations for papers submitted by members of the journal's editorial team, as well as for special series

Editorials, news items, and interviews authored by the journal’s editors are not subject to external peer review. However, all submissions presenting original research or other substantive content authored by editors undergo independent peer review.

To ensure impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest, members of the editorial team are not involved in the handling of their own manuscripts, including review, editing, or decision-making. Such submissions follow the standard review process, with peer review conducted independently of the involved editor and their research group. For example, manuscripts authored by the Editor-in-Chief are assigned to an Associate Editor or, if unavailable, to an Editorial Board Member with appropriate expertise. Following external peer review, the assigned editor makes the final decision.

For special series, Guest Editors are not permitted to participate in the peer review of manuscripts within their collection. In these cases, final decisions are made by the Executive Editor in consultation with the Editorial Board.

Submission turnaround time

In-house review: 1-2 weeks
External peer review: 1-3 months
Formal publication: within 1 month after being accepted.