Peer Review Process

BIJEMA applies a double-blind (double-anonymized) peer-review process to evaluate the scholarly quality and publication suitability of submitted manuscripts. Under this review model, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. This system is intended to support an independent scholarly assessment of each manuscript. The peer-review process consists of three main phases: Pre-Review Assessment, Independent Peer Review, and Final Decision and Revision. Reviewer reports are used to inform the editorial decision; however, the editor retains full responsibility for determining whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.

1. Pre-Review Assessment

1.1 Manuscript Submission

The peer-review process begins when an author submits a manuscript through BIJEMA’s Open Journal Systems (OJS). The submission must include the manuscript file and all information required by the journal’s submission system. A manuscript recorded in the system is considered submitted but does not immediately proceed to external peer review. It must first pass the administrative, editorial, and originality assessments conducted during the pre-review stage.

1.2 Administrative Check

After submission, the editorial team conducts an administrative check to determine whether the submission is complete and follows the journal’s required format. This assessment concerns the completeness of the submitted materials and their conformity with the technical requirements established by BIJEMA. If the submission is complete and appropriately formatted, it proceeds to the Initial Editorial Screening. If the submission is incomplete or does not meet the required format, it is returned to the author for Technical Correction. At this stage, the manuscript has not been rejected on academic grounds. The author is requested to complete or correct the submission before submitting it again through OJS. Once the necessary technical corrections have been completed, the manuscript returns to the Manuscript Submission stage and undergoes another administrative check.

1.3 Initial Editorial Screening

A manuscript that passes the administrative check undergoes an Initial Editorial Screening. During this stage, the editor assesses the manuscript’s conformity with the journal’s focus and scope, its originality, and its academic merit. The purpose of this screening is to determine whether the manuscript is sufficiently relevant and suitable to proceed to the next assessment stage. This evaluation takes place before the manuscript is assigned to external reviewers. If the manuscript is considered suitable, it proceeds to the Similarity Check. If the manuscript is outside the journal’s scope or is considered to have insufficient academic merit, it receives a Desk Rejection. A desk-rejected manuscript does not proceed to external peer review, and the editorial assessment of that submission is concluded.

1.4 Similarity Check

A manuscript that passes the Initial Editorial Screening undergoes a Similarity Check as part of BIJEMA’s originality assessment. The purpose of this stage is to identify possible similarity concerns, duplication, or indications that require further editorial attention before the manuscript can be sent to independent reviewers. The outcome of the Similarity Check may follow one of three routes. If the manuscript passes the originality assessment, it proceeds to the Independent Peer Review stage. If the assessment identifies similarity concerns that can be corrected, the manuscript is returned to the author for Pre-review Revision. The author must address the identified concerns before the manuscript can proceed. After the revision has been submitted, the manuscript returns to the Similarity Check stage for another originality assessment. If the manuscript contains substantial plagiarism, substantial duplication, or another indication of serious publication misconduct, it receives a Rejection for Serious Misconduct. In this situation, the manuscript does not proceed to independent peer review.

2. Independent Peer Review

2.1 Reviewer Assignment

A manuscript that successfully passes all pre-review assessments proceeds to Reviewer Assignment. The editor assigns the manuscript to at least two independent experts whose academic expertise is relevant to the subject of the manuscript. The purpose of assigning at least two independent reviewers is to obtain separate scholarly assessments of the manuscript. Each reviewer evaluates the manuscript independently and provides a review report for editorial consideration. Reviewer assignment does not guarantee that a manuscript will be accepted. It indicates that the manuscript has passed the pre-review assessment and is considered eligible for independent scholarly evaluation.

2.2 Double-Blind Review

BIJEMA uses a double-blind (double-anonymized) review process. During this process, the reviewers assess the manuscript without knowing the identities of the authors, while the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers. The assigned reviewers conduct an independent scholarly assessment of the manuscript and provide their evaluations to the editor. Their reports are intended to help the editor determine whether the manuscript is suitable for publication, requires revision, or should be rejected. The reviewers’ assessments serve as scholarly recommendations. They do not independently determine the final publication outcome because responsibility for the editorial decision remains with the editor.

2.3 Editorial Decision

After the review reports have been received, the editor evaluates the manuscript together with the recommendations provided by the reviewers. The editor then issues an Editorial Decision. The editorial decision may result in Final Acceptance, Minor or Major Revision, or Rejection. The decision is based on the manuscript’s overall evaluation during the peer-review process.

3. Final Decision and Revision

3.1 Final Acceptance

If the manuscript has satisfactorily completed the peer-review process and no further academic revision is required, the editor issues Final Acceptance. Final Acceptance indicates that the peer-review process has been completed. The manuscript is academically accepted and may subsequently proceed according to the journal’s publication and production workflow.

3.2 Minor or Major Revision

If the manuscript requires improvement before a final decision can be made, the editor issues a Minor Revision or Major Revision decision. The manuscript is returned to the author for Author Revision. The author must revise the manuscript and prepare a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments. The response should clearly explain how the comments have been addressed in the revised manuscript. After the revised manuscript and the point-by-point response have been submitted, the manuscript proceeds to Re-evaluation. The re-evaluation is conducted by the editor and, when required, by the reviewers. If additional reviewer evaluation is required, the revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers to determine whether the requested revisions have been adequately addressed. After re-evaluation, the manuscript returns to the Editorial Decision stage. The editor may then accept the manuscript, request another revision, or reject it. Therefore, a revision decision does not constitute acceptance. The manuscript must successfully complete the revision and re-evaluation process before Final Acceptance can be issued.

3.3 Rejection

If the manuscript does not satisfy the requirements for publication following the independent peer review and editorial assessment, the editor issues a Rejection decision. A rejection concludes the peer-review process for that submission. The manuscript does not proceed to the production and publication stages. Reviewer reports inform the decision; the editor retains full responsibility for acceptance or rejection.