Peer Review Policy

Every research article, review article, case study and short communication published in JABEM is peer reviewed. Editorials are not.

Review model

JABEM uses double-anonymous review: reviewers do not know who the authors are, and authors do not learn who reviewed their work.

Process

1. Screening: an editor checks scope, completeness, originality and basic quality. Manuscripts that are out of scope or not ready for review may be declined at this stage (desk rejection).
2. Peer review: manuscripts that pass screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers declare any conflict of interest before accepting.
3. Decision: the handling editor considers the reports and decides to accept, request minor or major revisions, or decline. Reviewers advise; editors decide.
4. Revision: authors respond point by point. Major revisions may go to a further round of review.
5. Production: accepted articles are copyedited and typeset, and authors approve the proofs before publication.

Timelines

We aim to complete screening within two weeks and reach a first decision after review within eight weeks of submission. Authors can follow progress in the author portal.

Reviewers

Reviewers are asked to be constructive, specific and timely, and to keep manuscripts confidential. Confidential comments to the editor are never shared with authors. If you would like to review for JABEM, create an account and add your areas of expertise to your profile.

Editors' own submissions

When an editor submits a manuscript, it is handled by another editor, and the submitting editor has no access to its review.