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 BSMMU Journal at the present time. The 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. The journal requires that the authors designate one of them to serve as the main point of contact with the Journal for all communication pertaining to the manuscript. Upon receipt, all manuscripts will receive a formal acknowledgment of submission.
Manuscripts submitted in BSMMU Journal 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 mode
BSMMU Journal 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 BSMMU Journal 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. It is important to note that 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 that are found apparently suitable for publication in BSMMU Journal are sent to two or more expert reviewers. During submission, the contributor is requested to provide names of two or three qualified reviewers who have had experience in the subject of the submitted manuscript, but this is not mandatory. The suggested reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institutes as the contributor/s. However, the selection of these reviewers is at the sole discretion of the editor.
Typically, each manuscript undergoes review by a minimum of two reviewers, although there are instances when we seek the review of additional reviewers. The selection of peer reviewers is based on their expertise and their ability to provide reviews that are of high quality, constructive, and impartial. In the case of research manuscripts, our editors may also enlist the expertise of a statistical reviewer.
The confidentiality of manuscripts under review is of utmost importance, and their existence should not be disclosed to anyone other than the assigned peer reviewers and our editorial staff. Peer reviewers are ethically bound to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscripts they evaluate. They are prohibited from sharing any information about a specific manuscript or its content with any external parties unless they have obtained prior permission from the journal's editors.
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
Reviewers play a fundamental role in the publication process, serving as its cornerstone. The peer review system is essential for ensuring the reliability and credibility of research. At BSMMU Journal, we deeply value the vital role that reviewers undertake in the review process and wants to encourage good standards of review. As an expression of our gratitude and recognition for their valuable contributions, BSMMU Journal compiles an "Annual list of reviewers". This comprehensive list publicly acknowledges and appreciates the reviewers' efforts across all BSMMU Journals. Through this annual list, we extend our heartfelt thanks to reviewers for their dedication in upholding the quality of research articles.
However, BSMMU Journal is trying to obtain the official partnership with Publons to recognize our reviewers.
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 within three days. The finalized version of the manuscript will be available on the journal's website. The entire process, from initial submission to the final decision, as well as sending and receiving proofs, is conducted online.
Peer review flowchart
- The Handling Editors forward the submitted manuscript to the Executive Editor.
- The Executive Editor, based on the manuscript's subject matter, refers it to a relevant Editorial team member.
- The designated Editorial team members with expertise in the field either review the manuscript themselves or propose external reviewers to the Editorial Office. If necessary, a comprehensive literature search is conducted to identify suitable external experts.
- External experts undertake the review of the manuscript.
- The external reviewers provide their recommendations.
- The recommendations, along with a review from the assigned Editorial team member, are relayed to the Executive Editor.
- The Executive Editor renders a decision on the manuscript, with four possible outcomes: acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection.
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, articles presenting original research, analysis, or other features authored by the editors are subject to independent peer review.
In the interest of impartial decision-making and to prevent potential conflicts of interest, authors holding positions within the journal's editorial team will not be directly involved in the editorial handling of their own manuscripts. This includes reviewing, editing, and making final decisions. Furthermore, editors are not part of the decision-making process for manuscripts authored by family members or colleagues, or those related to products or services in which the editor has a vested interest. In such cases, all submissions undergo the standard journal procedures, with peer review being conducted independently of the involved editor and their research groups. For instance, articles authored by the Editor-in-Chief will be assigned to an Associate Editor or, in the absence of an Associate Editor, to an Editorial Board Member with relevant expertise. Following the receipt of review comments from external reviewers, the manuscript will be returned to the Editorial Board Member for a final decision.
For submissions from editorial team members or for special series, the following information will be included in the footnote if accepted:
- Declaration of Conflicts of Interest: This will include an acknowledgment of the author's association with the journal, distinct from the completion of the COI form provided by ICMJE. It will also address whether the special series has received sponsorship.
- Peer Review File (if applicable): Transparent peer review is a mandatory practice, and review comments will be published alongside the article.
For new special series, our journal policy mandates that Guest Editors are excluded from participating in the peer review of all manuscripts featured in their special series. This measure is taken to prevent potential conflicts of interest.
Submission turnaround time
- In-house review: 1-3 weeks
- External peer review: 1-2 months
- Publication ahead of print: within 1 month after being accepted
- Formal publication: within 1 months after being accepted. Original Articles are listed as priority.