Review Process

The Bangladesh Journal of Fisheries Research (BJFR) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, integrity, and transparency through a rigorous and impartial peer review process. Peer review is a fundamental component of scholarly publishing and serves as an independent evaluation of the scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts. It helps ensure that published research is accurate, reliable, reproducible, and contributes meaningfully to the advancement of fisheries and aquatic sciences.

The primary objectives of the peer review process are to evaluate the scientific validity of submitted manuscripts, improve the quality of research through constructive feedback, identify methodological or ethical concerns, and assist editors in making informed publication decisions. Peer review also supports authors by providing expert recommendations that enhance the clarity, accuracy, and overall quality of their work before publication.

BJFR follows internationally accepted standards for peer review and publication ethics. The journal’s review process is guided by the recommendations and best practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and other recognized organizations promoting responsible scholarly publishing.

Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit and ethical considerations. Reviewers and editors evaluate manuscripts objectively without discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, institutional affiliation, religion, political beliefs, career stage, or any other non-scientific factor. The journal is committed to providing authors with a fair, confidential, timely, and unbiased review process.

BJFR employs a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. This approach minimizes potential bias, promotes impartial evaluation, and ensures that manuscripts are assessed solely on their scientific quality and relevance.

The review process forms an integral part of BJFR’s commitment to publishing high-quality research that advances fisheries, aquaculture, aquatic ecology, marine science, freshwater biology, aquatic biotechnology, fisheries management, and related disciplines.

Types of peer review used by BJFR

BJFR primarily operates a double-blind peer review system. Depending on the nature of the manuscript and the issues identified during editorial assessment, additional forms of review may also be undertaken to ensure the highest standards of scientific quality and publication integrity.

Double-blind peer review

The journal follows a double-blind review model in which neither the authors nor the reviewers are informed of each other’s identities during the evaluation process. Authors are required to prepare their manuscripts in a manner that does not reveal their identities within the main document, while reviewers receive anonymized manuscripts for evaluation. The double-blind review system helps:

reduce conscious and unconscious bias;
promote objective scientific evaluation;
ensure fairness regardless of author reputation or institutional affiliation;
encourage reviewers to provide independent and impartial assessments; and
strengthen confidence in editorial decisions.

Editorial screening

Before external peer review, every manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment conducted by the Editorial Office or the handling editor. This screening evaluates whether the manuscript:

falls within the scope of BJFR;
complies with the journal’s formatting requirements;
satisfies ethical and administrative requirements;
demonstrates sufficient scientific quality to justify external review; and
passes plagiarism and similarity screening.

Only manuscripts that successfully complete this preliminary evaluation proceed to external peer review.

Statistical and methodological review

For manuscripts involving advanced statistical analyses, complex experimental designs, modelling approaches, or specialized quantitative methods, the handling editor may request an independent statistical or methodological review. These reviews are intended to verify:

appropriateness of statistical methods;
accuracy of data analysis;
validity of experimental design;
interpretation of statistical results; and
reproducibility of analytical procedures.

Recommendations from statistical reviewers are considered alongside scientific reviews during editorial decision-making.

Ethical review

Where concerns arise regarding research ethics, animal welfare, human participants, environmental impact, data integrity, or publication ethics, the journal may conduct an additional ethical assessment. Editors may request supporting documentation, including:

institutional ethical approval;
research permits;
informed consent documentation, where applicable;
data availability information; or
clarification regarding ethical procedures followed during the research.

Failure to adequately address ethical concerns may result in rejection or suspension of the review process.

Additional expert review

For highly specialized, interdisciplinary, or emerging research areas, the handling editor may invite additional subject experts to provide independent evaluations. This helps ensure that all technical aspects of the manuscript receive appropriate scientific scrutiny.

Additional reviewers may also be invited when reviewer reports provide substantially conflicting recommendations or when further expertise is required to resolve scientific questions.

Reviewer selection process

The quality of peer review depends largely on the expertise, independence, and professionalism of the reviewers selected. BJFR therefore follows a structured reviewer selection process designed to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated by qualified experts with appropriate subject knowledge and no conflicts of interest.

Reviewer qualifications

Reviewers are selected based on their demonstrated expertise in the subject area of the submitted manuscript. Selection criteria may include:

academic qualifications;
research specialization;
publication record in relevant disciplines;
previous peer review experience;
professional reputation; and
familiarity with current developments in fisheries and aquatic sciences.

Where appropriate, reviewers from academia, research institutes, government organizations, and other relevant scientific institutions may be invited.

Reviewer database

BJFR maintains and continually updates a database of qualified reviewers representing diverse areas of expertise within fisheries and aquatic sciences. The Editorial Office regularly reviews reviewer performance, areas of specialization, responsiveness, and review quality to support future reviewer selection.

Editors may also identify suitable reviewers through published literature, conference proceedings, professional networks, or recommendations from members of the Editorial Board.

Selection criteria

When selecting reviewers, editors consider several factors, including:

subject expertise relevant to the manuscript;
absence of actual or perceived conflicts of interest;
previous performance as a reviewer;
availability to complete the review within the requested timeframe;
diversity of scientific perspectives; and
balance of reviewer expertise.

Whenever possible, reviewers from different institutions and geographical regions are selected to promote independent and balanced scientific evaluation.

Conflict of interest assessment

Before accepting a review invitation, prospective reviewers are expected to disclose any financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, or personal relationships that could influence—or reasonably be perceived to influence—their judgment. Reviewers should decline invitations where significant conflicts of interest exist, including:

recent collaboration with the authors;
employment at the same institution;
direct academic competition;
financial interests related to the research; or
personal relationships that may compromise impartiality.

Where conflicts are identified after acceptance of the review assignment, reviewers should notify the handling editor immediately and withdraw from the review if appropriate.

Reviewer invitation

Potential reviewers are invited by the handling editor through the journal’s editorial system or official communication channels. Invitations include the manuscript title, abstract, expected review timeline, confidentiality requirements, and any relevant editorial instructions.

Reviewers are requested to respond promptly by either accepting or declining the invitation. If a reviewer declines, the editor identifies alternative experts to avoid unnecessary delays in manuscript processing.

Reviewer diversity and independence

BJFR is committed to selecting reviewers based solely on scientific expertise and independence. The journal strives to maintain diversity among reviewers with respect to institutional affiliation, geographical location, scientific perspective, gender, and career stage whenever appropriate. Editors avoid repeatedly relying on the same reviewers and seek to broaden the reviewer pool to ensure balanced, objective, and high-quality evaluations.

Reviewer recognition

BJFR values the voluntary contributions of reviewers to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Reviewer identities remain confidential unless disclosure is explicitly agreed upon by all parties and permitted by journal policy. The journal may acknowledge reviewer contributions collectively through annual reviewer recognition initiatives or other appropriate mechanisms while maintaining the confidentiality of individual manuscript reviews.

Review workflow and stages

The peer review workflow at the BJFR is designed to ensure that every manuscript receives a fair, objective, confidential, and scientifically rigorous evaluation. The review process follows a structured sequence of editorial and reviewer activities that collectively support high-quality publication decisions while maintaining efficiency and transparency.

Assignment to the handling editor

Following successful completion of the initial editorial assessment, each manuscript is assigned to a handling editor with expertise relevant to the subject area of the submission. The handling editor is responsible for managing the peer review process from reviewer selection through the final editorial recommendation. The handling editor evaluates the manuscript to determine the most appropriate reviewers and ensures that all stages of the review process are conducted in accordance with the journal’s editorial policies and ethical standards.

Reviewer invitation

The handling editor normally invites at least two independent reviewers who possess expertise relevant to the manuscript. Invitations include sufficient information to enable reviewers to determine whether they have the necessary expertise and sufficient time to complete the review. Before accepting an invitation, reviewers are expected to consider:

whether the manuscript falls within their area of expertise;
whether they have any actual or potential conflicts of interest;
whether they can complete the review within the requested timeframe; and
whether they can provide an objective and confidential assessment.

If reviewers are unable to accept the invitation, they are encouraged to decline promptly so that alternative reviewers can be identified without unnecessary delay.

Acceptance of the review assignment

Upon accepting the invitation, reviewers agree to:

maintain strict confidentiality;
conduct an independent and unbiased evaluation;
comply with the journal’s ethical standards;
submit their review within the agreed deadline; and
disclose any conflicts of interest that arise during the review process.

Acceptance of a review assignment signifies a commitment to provide a professional, constructive, and evidence-based assessment.

Evaluation of the manuscript

Reviewers are expected to examine the manuscript comprehensively and critically. The evaluation should consider both the scientific quality of the work and its presentation. Reviewers generally assess:

originality of the research;
significance of the research question;
adequacy of the literature review;
appropriateness of study design;
methodological rigor;
validity of statistical analyses;
quality and reliability of data;
interpretation of results;
strength of discussion and conclusions;
quality of figures, tables, and references; and
compliance with ethical standards.

Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between essential revisions necessary for scientific validity and optional suggestions intended to improve presentation or clarity.

Reviewer comments

Reviewer reports should be clear, constructive, objective, and respectful. Comments should assist both the authors and editors by identifying strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and providing specific recommendations for improvement. Reviewer reports normally include:

an overall assessment of the manuscript;
major comments requiring substantial revision;
minor comments relating to presentation or formatting;
confidential comments to the editor, where appropriate; and
a publication recommendation.

BJFR encourages reviewers to support their comments with scientific reasoning and, where appropriate, references to relevant literature.

Reviewer recommendations

After completing their assessment, reviewers recommend one of the following editorial outcomes:

accept without revision;
accept after minor revision;
reconsider after major revision;
reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory in nature. Final publication decisions remain the responsibility of the editors.

Handling conflicting reviewer reports

Occasionally, reviewer recommendations may differ substantially. When conflicting opinions occur, the handling editor carefully evaluates the scientific basis of each review rather than relying solely on the recommendation category. Depending on the circumstances, the editor may:

request clarification from reviewers;
seek an additional independent review;
consult a member of the Editorial Board;
obtain specialist statistical or methodological advice; or
conduct an independent editorial assessment.

The objective is to reach a balanced and scientifically justified decision.

Additional rounds of review

When major revisions are requested, revised manuscripts may be returned to one or more of the original reviewers for further evaluation. Additional review rounds allow reviewers to determine whether previous concerns have been adequately addressed.

Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the handling editor without further external review where appropriate.

Completion of peer review

The peer review stage concludes once sufficient expert evaluations have been received and the handling editor has completed an overall assessment of the manuscript. The handling editor then prepares a recommendation for the Editor-in-Chief, who considers reviewer reports, editorial assessment, ethical compliance, and journal standards before making the final editorial decision.

Reviewer responsibilities and ethical obligations

Reviewers play a vital role in safeguarding the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly publishing. BJFR expects reviewers to perform their responsibilities with professionalism, impartiality, confidentiality, and respect for authors and the scientific process.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents. Reviewers must treat all submitted materials as privileged information and must not disclose, discuss, distribute, or use any unpublished content for personal, academic, or commercial purposes. Reviewers must not:

share manuscripts with colleagues without editorial permission;
retain copies of manuscripts after completion of the review;
use unpublished findings in their own research; or
disclose reviewer identities or manuscript contents to unauthorized individuals.

Confidentiality obligations continue even after the review process has concluded.

Objectivity and impartiality

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts solely on scientific merit. Personal opinions regarding the authors, their institutions, nationality, gender, seniority, or other unrelated characteristics must not influence the review. Reviews should be:

evidence-based;
objective;
balanced;
fair; and
free from personal criticism.

Where reviewers identify limitations or weaknesses, they should provide constructive recommendations to help authors improve the manuscript.

Professional conduct

Reviewers are expected to communicate respectfully and professionally at all times. Criticism should focus on the scientific content of the manuscript rather than the authors.

Reviewer comments should be:

courteous;
specific;
scientifically justified;
clear and understandable; and
aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript.

Inappropriate language, discriminatory remarks, or unsubstantiated criticism are not acceptable.

Conflict of interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could affect—or reasonably appear to affect—their impartiality. Examples include:

recent collaboration with the authors;
employment at the same institution;
financial interests related to the research;
competitive relationships; or
personal relationships with the authors.

Where a significant conflict exists, reviewers should decline the invitation or withdraw immediately if the conflict becomes apparent after accepting the assignment.

Reporting ethical concerns

Reviewers are encouraged to alert the editors if they suspect:

plagiarism;
duplicate or redundant publication;
fabricated or falsified data;
image manipulation;
inappropriate authorship;
unethical research practices;
undeclared conflicts of interest; or
other forms of publication misconduct.

Reviewers are not expected to conduct formal investigations but should provide sufficient information to enable editors to evaluate the concerns appropriately.

Timeliness

Timely peer review is essential for efficient editorial processing. Reviewers who accept assignments are expected to submit their reports within the requested deadline. If circumstances prevent completion of the review within the agreed timeframe, reviewers should inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Use of artificial intelligence

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished data into publicly accessible artificial intelligence tools or external systems that could compromise confidentiality or intellectual property.

If reviewers choose to use AI-assisted tools for limited purposes, such use must not replace independent scientific judgment, and reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, confidentiality, and originality of their review.

Recognition of reviewer contributions

BJFR greatly values the voluntary contributions of reviewers. Although individual reviews remain confidential, the journal may acknowledge reviewer service through annual recognition initiatives, certificates of appreciation, or other appropriate mechanisms that do not compromise reviewer anonymity or manuscript confidentiality. Through adherence to these responsibilities and ethical obligations, reviewers contribute significantly to maintaining the scientific excellence, integrity, and international reputation of the BJFR.

Evaluation criteria for manuscripts

The BJFR evaluates all manuscripts using consistent scientific and editorial criteria to ensure that published articles meet the highest standards of research quality, integrity, and scholarly contribution. Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts objectively and provide recommendations based on the overall scientific merit of the work rather than personal opinions or preferences.

Originality and novelty

One of the primary criteria for publication is originality. Reviewers assess whether the manuscript presents new knowledge, innovative methodologies, novel datasets, or fresh interpretations that contribute meaningfully to fisheries and aquatic sciences. Manuscripts should demonstrate a clear advancement over previously published research. Studies that merely repeat existing work without significant scientific contribution are unlikely to be recommended for publication unless they provide important validation, regional significance, or methodological improvements.

Relevance to the journal’s scope

Reviewers determine whether the manuscript aligns with the aims and scope of BJFR. Priority is given to research that advances knowledge in fisheries, aquaculture, aquatic ecology, marine and freshwater biology, fish health, fisheries management, aquatic biotechnology, seafood science, aquatic environmental sciences, and other related disciplines. Interdisciplinary studies are also welcomed provided they have a clear connection to fisheries and aquatic sciences.

Scientific significance

Reviewers evaluate the importance of the research question and the potential impact of the findings on scientific knowledge, fisheries management, policy development, aquaculture practices, biodiversity conservation, or sustainable utilization of aquatic resources. Manuscripts should clearly explain why the research is important and how it contributes to existing literature.

Research design and methodology

The study design should be scientifically appropriate and sufficiently detailed to allow evaluation and potential replication. Reviewers assess:

appropriateness of research objectives;
experimental or observational design;
sampling strategy;
sample size adequacy;
data collection methods;
laboratory and analytical procedures;
quality assurance measures; and
reproducibility of the methodology.

Methodological limitations should be acknowledged and appropriately discussed by the authors.

Data quality and statistical analysis

Reviewers evaluate whether the reported data are reliable, complete, and appropriately analyzed. Particular attention is given to:

accuracy of data presentation;
suitability of statistical methods;
interpretation of statistical results;
consistency between reported data and conclusions;
treatment of missing data; and
presentation of uncertainty and variability.

Where specialized statistical analyses are employed, reviewers may recommend additional statistical review.

Results and interpretation

Results should be presented clearly, logically, and without unnecessary duplication between text, tables, and figures. Reviewers assess whether:

results directly address the research objectives;
conclusions are supported by the data;
alternative interpretations are considered;
limitations are acknowledged; and
findings are not overstated.

Speculative conclusions unsupported by evidence should be avoided.

Literature review and referencing

The manuscript should include a comprehensive and balanced review of relevant literature. Reviewers examine whether:

important publications have been appropriately cited;
references are current and relevant;
citations are accurate;
literature is critically analysed rather than merely summarized; and
citation practices are ethical and free from unnecessary self-citation.

Quality of presentation

The manuscript should be written in clear, concise, and scientifically appropriate English.

Reviewers evaluate:

logical organization;
clarity of writing;
quality of figures and tables;
consistency of terminology;
appropriateness of headings and subheadings; and
overall readability.

Minor language deficiencies alone are generally not grounds for rejection if the scientific content is of high quality.

Ethical compliance

Reviewers should consider whether the research appears to comply with accepted ethical standards. This includes assessment of:

ethical approval where required;
animal welfare considerations;
informed consent, where applicable;
conflict of interest disclosure;
funding transparency;
data integrity; and
adherence to publication ethics.

Any ethical concerns should be communicated confidentially to the handling editor.

Overall recommendation

After completing the evaluation, reviewers provide an overall assessment of the manuscript and recommend one of the journal’s editorial decision categories. Recommendations should be supported by clear scientific justification and constructive comments intended to improve the manuscript.

Editorial decision-making based on reviews

Editorial decisions at BJFR are based on a balanced consideration of reviewer reports, editorial assessment, scientific merit, and compliance with the journal’s ethical and publication standards. While reviewer recommendations are highly valued, they serve as advisory opinions rather than binding decisions.

Role of the handling editor

The handling editor reviews all reviewer reports, evaluates the quality and consistency of the comments, and prepares an editorial recommendation for the Editor-in-Chief. In making this recommendation, the handling editor considers:

scientific quality of the manuscript;
reviewer recommendations;
adequacy of author responses to reviewer comments;
originality and significance;
ethical compliance; and
suitability for publication in BJFR.

Role of the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief has ultimate responsibility for all editorial decisions. The Editor-in-Chief may:

accept the handling editor’s recommendation;
request additional review;
seek advice from Editorial Board members;
request further revision; or
reject or accept the manuscript based on the overall scientific assessment.

The final editorial decision is independent, impartial, and based solely on scholarly merit.

Editorial decision categories

Following consideration of reviewer reports and editorial evaluation, BJFR may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept.
Accept with minor revision.
Major revision required.
Reject with encouragement to resubmit.
Reject.

Each decision is accompanied by reviewer comments and editorial guidance intended to assist authors in understanding the basis of the decision.

Handling conflicting reviewer recommendations

When reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the handling editor evaluates the scientific reasoning presented in each report. Where necessary, the editor may:

request clarification from reviewers;
invite an additional independent reviewer;
consult statistical or methodological experts; or
conduct an independent editorial assessment.

The objective is to ensure that the final decision reflects the scientific quality of the manuscript rather than a simple numerical majority of reviewer recommendations.

Communication of editorial decisions

Editorial decisions are communicated to the corresponding author through the journal’s official communication system.

Decision letters include:

the editorial decision;
anonymized reviewer comments;
editorial recommendations;
revision instructions, where applicable; and
timelines for resubmission when revisions are requested.

Revision and re-review process

Most manuscripts accepted for publication require revision following peer review. The revision process provides authors with an opportunity to improve the scientific quality, clarity, and presentation of their work in response to reviewer and editorial comments.

Preparation of revised manuscripts

Authors should carefully consider all reviewer and editorial comments when preparing a revised manuscript. Revisions should:

address each comment thoroughly;
improve methodological descriptions where necessary;
clarify interpretations;
correct identified errors;
revise figures or tables where appropriate; and
strengthen discussion and conclusions where required.

Response to reviewer comments

Authors must submit a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Where authors disagree with a recommendation, they should provide a clear, scientific, and respectful justification supported by appropriate evidence or references.

Submission of revised manuscripts

The revised manuscript should include:

a clean revised version;
a version with tracked or highlighted changes, where requested; and
a detailed response to reviewers.

Failure to provide adequate responses may delay editorial processing or result in rejection.

Re-evaluation of revised manuscripts

Minor revisions are generally evaluated by the handling editor.

Major revisions may be returned to one or more of the original reviewers to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed previous concerns.

Additional reviewers may be invited if specialized expertise is required.

Multiple rounds of revision

In some cases, more than one round of revision may be necessary to resolve scientific or methodological concerns. Editors determine whether additional revision cycles are justified based on:

the extent of remaining issues;
reviewer recommendations;
scientific importance of the manuscript; and
likelihood that remaining deficiencies can be satisfactorily addressed.

Revision timelines

Authors are expected to submit revised manuscripts within the deadline specified in the editorial decision letter. If additional time is required, authors should request an extension before the deadline expires. Extension requests are considered at the discretion of the handling editor.

Failure to submit revisions

Failure to submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe, without prior communication or approved extension, may result in administrative withdrawal or rejection of the manuscript. Authors wishing to continue consideration after withdrawal may be required to submit the manuscript as a new submission.

Completion of the review process

The review process concludes when the manuscript has satisfactorily addressed all scientific, methodological, editorial, and ethical concerns and the Editor-in-Chief issues a final publication decision. Accepted manuscripts then proceed to copyediting, production, proofreading, and publication according to the BJFR Publication Process.

Special review situations

BJFR recognizes that certain manuscripts require additional safeguards to maintain fairness, transparency, and editorial independence. The journal has established procedures for handling special review situations while ensuring that all submissions receive an objective and rigorous scientific evaluation.

Manuscripts submitted by editors or Editorial Board members

To avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest, manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, members of the Editorial Board, or Editorial Office staff are handled independently. Such manuscripts are assigned to an editor who has no involvement in the work and no conflict of interest with the authors. The submitting editor or board member has no access to the editorial workflow, reviewer identities, reviewer reports, or editorial decisions concerning their manuscript. The manuscript undergoes the same double-blind peer review process and editorial standards as all other submissions.

Conflict of interest during peer review

If a reviewer or editor identifies an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest during the review process, they must immediately disclose it to the Editorial Office. Depending on the nature of the conflict, the journal may:

appoint a different reviewer;
reassign the manuscript to another editor;
obtain additional independent reviews; or
implement other measures necessary to ensure an impartial evaluation.

Interdisciplinary manuscripts

Manuscripts covering multiple scientific disciplines may require reviewers from different areas of expertise. In such cases, the handling editor may invite reviewers representing complementary disciplines to ensure that all aspects of the research receive appropriate scientific evaluation.

Highly specialized research

For manuscripts involving advanced analytical techniques, molecular methods, bioinformatics, artificial intelligence, mathematical modelling, or other specialized methodologies, BJFR may obtain additional expert review to assess technical accuracy and methodological validity.

Ethical concerns identified during review

If reviewers identify possible ethical issues, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate authorship, or unethical research practices, the review process may be suspended while the Editorial Office conducts an investigation in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics Policy. Where appropriate, authors may be requested to provide additional documentation, explanations, original data, or institutional approvals before editorial processing continues.

Reviewer withdrawal

A reviewer may withdraw from the review process if circumstances arise that prevent completion of the review or compromise impartiality.

In such cases, the handling editor appoints another qualified reviewer to ensure continuity of the evaluation process.

Quality assurance and review integrity

BJFR is committed to maintaining a peer review system that is transparent, robust, ethical, and resistant to manipulation. Quality assurance measures are implemented throughout the review process to protect the integrity of editorial decision-making.

Monitoring reviewer performance

The Editorial Office regularly evaluates reviewer performance based on:

quality and depth of review reports;
scientific accuracy of evaluations;
objectivity and professionalism;
timeliness of review completion; and
adherence to ethical standards.

Reviewers who consistently provide high-quality reviews may be invited for future assignments or considered for editorial roles.

Prevention of peer review manipulation

BJFR maintains strict procedures to prevent manipulation of the peer review process.

The journal does not permit:

fabricated reviewer identities;
fraudulent reviewer accounts;
reviewer impersonation;
inappropriate author influence on reviewer selection; or
attempts to interfere with editorial independence.

The Editorial Office verifies reviewer identities whenever necessary and may use institutional affiliations, publication records, ORCID profiles, or other appropriate methods to confirm reviewer authenticity.

Editorial quality control

Editors monitor reviewer reports to ensure that reviews are:

scientifically justified;
constructive;
respectful;
free from discriminatory language; and
consistent with journal standards.

Where reviewer reports are inadequate or unprofessional, the editor may disregard the report and obtain an additional independent review.

Confidentiality and data protection

BJFR maintains strict confidentiality throughout the review process. Manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and related documents are accessible only to individuals directly involved in editorial processing. The journal manages editorial records in accordance with applicable data protection requirements and internal confidentiality policies.

10.5 Continuous improvement

BJFR periodically reviews and updates its peer review procedures to reflect developments in scholarly publishing, publication ethics, and editorial best practices. The journal encourages feedback from authors, reviewers, editors, and readers to strengthen the effectiveness, fairness, and transparency of the review system.

Review timeline and efficiency standards

BJFR strives to provide a timely review process while maintaining rigorous scientific evaluation.

The journal aims to achieve the following general timeline:

Initial editorial screening: within 1–2 weeks after submission.
Reviewer invitation and confirmation: approximately 1–2 weeks.
Peer review completion: generally within 3–6 weeks after reviewer acceptance.
First editorial decision: typically within 4–8 weeks of submission.
Evaluation of revised manuscripts: generally within 2–4 weeks after resubmission.
Final editorial decision: as soon as all scientific and editorial requirements have been satisfied.

These timelines are intended as general targets and may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and editorial workload.

The Editorial Office makes every reasonable effort to minimize unnecessary delays while preserving the quality and integrity of the review process.