Believers Medical Journal (BeMJ) recognizes independent peer review as an essential component of scholarly publishing, scientific evaluation, and editorial decision-making. The journal relies on the subject expertise, professional judgment, impartiality, and ethical conduct of qualified reviewers to assess submitted manuscripts fairly, constructively, and confidentially.
Through its structured double-blind peer-review process, reviewers assess the scientific validity, methodological quality, originality, ethical integrity, and relevance of submitted medical and healthcare research. Reviewer responsibilities are informed by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, ICMJE Recommendations, and transparency principles reflected in applicable DOAJ criteria.
Reviewers are expected to:
Manuscripts received for peer review must be treated as confidential and privileged scholarly documents.
Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, quote, distribute, or discuss manuscript content with unauthorized individuals. Unpublished information, data, methods, findings, or ideas obtained through the review process must not be used for personal, academic, financial, professional, or commercial advantage before or after publication.
Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their objectivity.
Circumstances that may require disclosure or recusal include:
Reviewers who identify a significant competing interest or determine that they do not possess sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript should decline the invitation promptly so that another qualified reviewer can be considered.
Assess whether the manuscript addresses a meaningful research question, presents original findings, or makes a relevant contribution to medical, biomedical, public health, or healthcare knowledge.
Assess whether the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of BeMJ and is relevant to the journal's intended medical, biomedical, public health, or healthcare readership.
Assess whether the background and literature review are relevant, sufficiently current, appropriately balanced, and supported by accurate references in the journal's required citation format.
Assess compliance with applicable reporting standards, including CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE, or ARRIVE, where relevant to the study design.
Assess the appropriateness of the research analysis, consistency of reported data, informed-consent provisions, and applicable IRB or IEC approval or other ethical oversight.
Assess the clarity, organization, scientific presentation, quality of figures and tables, and compliance with the journal's manuscript-formatting requirements.
Reviewers may provide recommendations such as:
Reviewers are generally requested to submit their reports within 14 to 21 days after accepting an invitation. When additional time is required, reviewers should contact the Editorial Office as early as possible.
Review reports should clearly distinguish confidential comments intended for the editor from constructive comments intended for the authors.
To protect manuscript confidentiality, author rights, unpublished research, and data security, reviewers must not upload manuscripts, abstracts, figures, tables, supplementary files, unpublished research data, or draft review reports to public or unauthorized generative artificial intelligence systems or other third-party platforms.
Any technological assistance permitted by the journal must comply with applicable confidentiality, data-protection, security, and disclosure requirements.
Reviewers should promptly and confidentially notify the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor when they identify potential concerns involving:
Reviewers should communicate such concerns through the editorial process rather than independently contacting authors or conducting an unauthorized investigation.
The Editorial Board of Believers Medical Journal (BeMJ) sincerely appreciates the contribution of its peer reviewers. Their time, subject expertise, constructive assessment, and professional judgment contribute to the quality, transparency, and integrity of the journal's scholarly publishing process.