Skip Navigation

Reviewing Policy

1.Submissions are reviewed anonymously and separately by at least two reviewers from the Journal’s Editorial Board or International Editorial Board. When there is an insufficiency of relevant editorial expertise to review specific submissions, guest reviewers with the appropriate expertise are invited to review.

2. Acceptance of an invitation to review is taken as signifying that the reviewers consider themselves qualified to assess the submission and know of no reason why it would be inappropriate for them to comment on its quality and make a recommendation as to whether or not it should be published in the BJC.

3. If, as reviewers read a submission, they realise that for any reason it is inappropriate for them to review that article, they are asked to return it to the Editor-in-Chief forthwith and another reviewer will be assigned.

4. It is considered to be inappropriate for reviewers to assess submissions which they know to be:

i. written by a family member
ii. written by a staff or student member of their present Department
iii. based upon a PHD which they themselves have supervised or examined
iv. based upon a project upon which they themselves have worked or for which they have been a grant-holder.

5. There will be other situations in which a reviewer may feel it inappropriate to review a particular article, but as these situations will vary according to personal circumstances, reviewers are advised to use their own judgement in relation to circumstances (see 6 below) where they may feel that a conflict of interests is involved. When in doubt, they should always inform, and seek advice from, the Editor-in-Chief.

6. If reviewers, for any reason, know, or can guess, who has written an anonymous submission which they have been asked to review, they are expected to consider whether a conflict of interest is involved if they know the author to be a close friend or a previous departmental or research colleague; or where they know themselves to be prejudiced either in favour of, or against, specific perspectives, topics or authors.