Peer Review Policy

Introduction

The peer review process is fundamental to the integrity and quality of scholarly publication. This policy outlines the procedures and expectations for the peer review of manuscripts submitted to our journal.

1. Peer Review Process

Once a manuscript passes the initial checks, it will be assigned to at least two independent experts for peer review. The reviewers will be selected based on their expertise in the relevant field and their ability to provide an impartial assessment of the manuscript.

1.1 Selection of Reviewers

In-house assistant editors will invite experts to review the manuscript, including recommendations from the academic editor. Reviewers may include Editorial Board Members and Guest Editors of the journal. Suggested reviewers provided by authors may be considered; however, those who have collaborated with any of the co-authors in the past three years or are currently affiliated with any of the authors' institutions will be excluded to avoid conflicts of interest.

2. Review Types

2.1 Accept after Minor Revisions

Manuscripts may be accepted in principle following minor revisions based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors will have five days to address the minor revisions.

2.2 Reconsider after Major Revisions

Manuscripts requiring significant revisions will be reconsidered after major revisions. Authors must provide a detailed point-by-point response to each reviewer comment. A maximum of two rounds of major revisions per manuscript will be permitted. If the estimated revision time exceeds two months, authors are encouraged to withdraw their manuscript and resubmit once sufficiently revised.

2.3 Reject and Encourage Resubmission

If additional experiments or analyses are required to support the conclusions, the manuscript may be rejected with encouragement to resubmit after further work is completed.

2.4 Reject

Manuscripts that exhibit serious flaws or fail to make a significant original contribution will be rejected, with no offer of resubmission.

3. Author Responsibilities

Authors are required to respond to all reviewer comments in a point-by-point format. If there is disagreement with a reviewer, authors must provide a clear rationale for their stance.

4. Appeals Process

Authors may appeal a rejection decision by emailing the Editorial Office. The appeal must include a detailed justification and point-by-point responses to reviewer comments using the designated appeal form. Appeals are accepted only for "reject and decline resubmission" decisions and must be submitted within three months of the decision date. The Managing Editor will forward the manuscript and related information to a designated Editorial Board Member for evaluation. The decision from the Editor-in-Chief following the advisory recommendation is final and cannot be reversed.

5. Confidentiality

Peer review comments are confidential and will only be disclosed with the express agreement of the reviewer.

6. Final Decision

The final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript lies with the Editor-in-Chief, following the recommendations of the reviewers.

Contact Information

For any inquiries regarding the peer review process, please contact our Editorial Office at ce_bmj@bsmrmu.edu.bd.