Review Model

BJRD uses double-blind peer review. Author identities are concealed from reviewers and reviewer identities are concealed from authors. Authors must submit an anonymised manuscript and a separate title page. The editorial office checks file properties and obvious identifying information where possible, but authors remain responsible for preparing a properly anonymised review file.

What Is Peer Reviewed

Original research articles, review articles, research notes, short communications, and special issue articles are normally subject to external peer review. Book reviews, editorials, announcements, obituaries, or invited commentaries may be assessed editorially or sent for review at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. The published issue must clearly label the article type.

Reviewer Selection and Independence

Reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant expertise, publication record, methodological competence, subject knowledge, independence, responsiveness, and ability to provide a constructive review within the required timeframe. The editorial office must avoid reviewers with known or apparent conflicts of interest, including recent collaboration, direct supervisory relationships, close personal or professional relationships, institutional conflicts, financial interests, competitive relationships, or other circumstances that may compromise impartiality.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers or identify reviewers they believe should be excluded, with reasons. BJRD is not obliged to use author suggestions and retains full discretion over reviewer selection.

Peer-review Workflow and Target Timelines

• Technical check: normally within 5 working days of submission.
• Initial editorial screening: normally within 10 working days after the technical check.
• Reviewer invitation response: reviewers are normally asked to accept or decline within 5 working days.
• External review period: normally 21–30 calendar days from reviewer acceptance.
• Editorial decision after sufficient reviews: normally within 10 working days.
• Minor revision period: normally 15–30 calendar days.
• Major revision period: normally 30–60 calendar days.
• Final editorial decision after revision: normally within 10–20 working days, depending on the extent of revision.

These are operational targets and may change where manuscripts are unusually complex, reviewers are unavailable, ethical concerns arise, authors need extra time, or institutional investigation is required.

Review Reports and Reviewer Comments

Reviewer reports must explain the basis of the recommendation and provide specific comments that help authors improve the manuscript. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; the editorial decision belongs to the Editor-in-Chief or delegated handling editor. BJRD may edit reviewer comments before sending them to authors only to remove identifying information, confidential material, offensive language, defamatory statements, or comments that breach journal policy. The journal must not alter the scholarly meaning of a review.

Editorial Decisions

Possible decisions include reject without external review, reject after review, major revision, minor revision, accept subject to final checks, or accept. Decisions must be based on scholarly contribution, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, clarity, fit with BJRD, reviewer advice, and editorial judgement.

Revision Process

Authors invited to revise must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed. BJRD normally permits up to three rounds of revision. Additional rounds may be allowed only where the Editor-in-Chief considers them necessary and proportionate.

Confidentiality and AI Restrictions in Peer Review

All submitted manuscripts, reviews, editorial correspondence, and decision discussions are confidential. Reviewers and editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, data, tables, figures, or review materials to public or external AI tools where confidentiality, data security, or ownership cannot be assured. AI tools must not be used to replace expert judgement, generate a review without human assessment, or disclose confidential manuscript content.