Reviewers support BJRD by providing objective, constructive, confidential, and evidence-based assessments.
Before Accepting a Review
Reviewers should accept review invitations only when they have relevant expertise, sufficient time, and no actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest before accepting the review and immediately if circumstances change.
Confidentiality
Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript, review form, reviewer comments, editorial correspondence, and unpublished data. They must not share the manuscript, upload it to external AI tools, involve another person, or use the content for personal advantage without prior written permission from BJRD.
Review Quality
Reviewers should provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, respectful, and specific comments. They should assess originality, contribution, methodology, analysis, interpretation, ethical compliance, clarity, and relevance to BJRD. Reviewers should identify the limits of their expertise where relevant and avoid hostile, discriminatory, defamatory, personal, or unsupported comments.
Citation Requests
Reviewers must avoid inappropriate requests for authors to cite the reviewer’s own work or unrelated work. Citation suggestions should be scholarly, necessary, and clearly justified.
Reporting Concerns
Reviewers should alert the editor confidentially if they suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, image manipulation, unethical research, authorship problems, undisclosed conflicts of interest, peer-review manipulation, or other misconduct.
Co-reviewers
A reviewer may involve a co-reviewer, trainee, or colleague only with prior permission from the editorial office. The co-reviewer must be identified to BJRD, agree to the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements, and receive appropriate credit or acknowledgement in journal records where permitted. The invited reviewer remains responsible for the submitted review.
