Believers Medical Journal (BeMJ) is committed to maintaining high standards of scientific quality, clinical relevance, fairness, and publication ethics through a transparent and rigorous double-blind peer-review process. Manuscripts submitted to BeMJ are evaluated objectively for originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, scientific significance, and relevance to medical research or clinical practice.
The journal's peer-review and editorial procedures are informed by the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and transparency principles reflected in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) criteria.
Before external peer review, submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment that may include:
Reviewers are selected according to their relevant subject expertise, clinical or research experience, publication record, methodological knowledge, and suitability for assessing the submitted manuscript.
Before assignment, potential conflicts of interest are considered. Reviewers who have personal, professional, institutional, collaborative, or financial interests that could reasonably affect their judgment are expected to decline the invitation or promptly disclose the matter to the Editorial Office.
Reviewers may be identified through established academic and professional networks based on their expertise and experience in the relevant subject area.
Manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary editorial assessment are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.
Where necessary, statistical reviewers or other specialists may be consulted when a manuscript involves complex statistical analyses, specialized clinical issues, advanced methodologies, or technical matters requiring additional expertise.
When revisions are requested, authors may be required to provide a detailed point-by-point response addressing the reviewers' comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the handling editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.
The final editorial decision considers reviewer comments, editorial assessment, manuscript quality, ethical considerations, and the manuscript's contribution to medical knowledge.
Reviewers may consider the following aspects:
Significance and contribution to medical, biomedical, or clinical knowledge.
Appropriateness of study design, methodology, statistical analysis, and interpretation of findings.
Compliance with applicable reporting guidelines, including CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, and CARE, where relevant.
Appropriate informed consent, ethics documentation, and applicable IRB or IEC approval.
Clarity, organization, accuracy, and overall scholarly quality of the manuscript.
Submitted manuscripts, supplementary materials, unpublished data, and peer-review communications are treated as confidential.
Editors and reviewers must not:
All individuals participating in the review process are expected to maintain confidentiality throughout the evaluation process and after completion of the review.
Reviewers and handling editors must disclose financial, personal, professional, institutional, or collaborative interests that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their judgment.
A reviewer with a relevant conflict must decline or withdraw from the assignment. A conflicted editor must recuse themselves from the editorial process, and the manuscript may be reassigned to an independent editor when necessary.
Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, editorial board members, or individuals with a close relationship to the journal are handled independently from the submitting individual.
Such submissions are assigned to an uninvolved editor and are subject to the same editorial screening, peer-review standards, and decision-making procedures applicable to other manuscripts.
The submitting editor or editorial board member has no role in reviewer selection, editorial evaluation, or the final publication decision concerning their own submission.
BeMJ maintains procedures informed by COPE principles for addressing suspected:
Ethical concerns are assessed fairly and confidentially in accordance with the journal's applicable policies and procedures.
The journal aims to complete the initial editorial assessment within approximately one week.
External peer review generally takes approximately 2 to 4 weeks. Actual timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional assessment, and the extent of revisions required.
Authors are informed when an editorial decision has been reached.
Authors who believe that an editorial or peer-review decision may have been affected by factual errors, procedural concerns, potential bias, or a significant misunderstanding of the submitted work may submit an appeal with appropriate justification.
An appeal should include:
Appeals are assessed independently in accordance with the journal's editorial policies. The outcome is communicated to the author after appropriate consideration of the concerns raised.
Reviewer recommendations form an important part of the editorial assessment but are advisory in nature.
Final responsibility for decisions concerning acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor, acting in accordance with the journal's policies, available evidence, scholarly standards, and applicable ethical guidance.
Qualified medical researchers, clinicians, academics, and other scholars interested in contributing to the peer-review process may contact the BeMJ Editorial Office to express their interest in joining the journal's reviewer panel.
Reviewer selection considers subject expertise, research experience, publication record, methodological knowledge, and suitability for the journal's scholarly scope.