6-Peer Review Policy

To uphold the highest standards of scholarly integrity, BER implements a rigorous, ethical, and transparent peer review process.

The Peer Review Policy outlines the principles, procedures, and responsibilities guiding the peer review process at BER and provides clear expectations for authors, reviewers, and editors.

6.1    Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review aims to:

  • Assess the scientific quality and rigor of submitted manuscripts
  • Ensure originality and contribution to the field
  • Provide authors with constructive feedback
  • Support editorial decision-making
  • Maintain the integrity and credibility of the academic record

6.2    Peer Review Model at BER

BER uses a double-blind peer review process:

  • Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to one another
  • At least two independent reviewers evaluate each manuscript
  • Reviewers are selected based on expertise and absence of conflict

6.3    Scope of Peer Review

All scholarly submissions to BER undergo peer review, including:

  • Original research articles
  • Review papers
  • Theoretical/conceptual articles
  • Policy papers
  • Case studies

6.4    Review Process Overview

6.4.1 Submission Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts are initially screened for a ‘Desk Review’ by the editorial office for:

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
  • Adherence to formatting and submission guidelines
  • Originality (via plagiarism detection tools like Turnitin®)
  • Ethical compliance

Manuscripts that do not pass initial screening are returned to the authors or rejected without review. Those that pass the Desk Review stage are forwarded for a full-text review process. See policy # 3.

6.4.2 Reviewer Response

Invited reviewers must:

  • Accept or decline the invitation promptly (usually within 5 days)
  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest
  • Agree to confidentiality and ethical review conduct

6.4.3 Review Duration

  • Reviewers are generally given 2 to 3 weeks to complete a review.
  • Extensions may be granted upon request.

6.5    Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and peer review process.
  • Provide objective, constructive, and respectful feedback.
  • Assess:
    • Originality and contribution
    • Clarity and organization
    • Theoretical/methodological rigor
    • Validity of results and conclusions
    • Relevance and completeness of references
  • Avoid personal or discriminatory comments.

6.5.1 Ethical Conduct

Reviewers must:

  • Refrain from using unpublished information for personal gain.
  • Disclose any actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
  • Notify the editor if they identify ethical concerns, such as:
    • Plagiarism
    • Data fabrication
    • Redundant publication
    • Undisclosed conflicts of interest

6.6    Reviewer Anonymity and Confidentiality

  • BER does not reveal reviewer identities to authors or other reviewers.
  • Manuscripts under review are confidential documents and may not be shared or discussed with third parties.
  • Reviewers are not permitted to contact authors directly.

6.7    Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with minimal or no revisions.
  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires small changes; typically, not sent for further review.
  • Major Revision: Significant changes are needed; revised manuscript is typically re-reviewed.
  • Reject and Resubmit: The manuscript may be reconsidered in a substantially revised form as a new submission.
  • Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in BER.

Editors may consult additional reviewers or editorial board members in complex cases.

6.8    Revision and Resubmission

Authors receiving a revision decision must:

  • Submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe.
  • Provide a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment.
  • Highlight changes in the manuscript (tracked changes or annotated version).

Revised manuscripts may undergo further review or be assessed by editors directly, depending on the extent of changes.

6.9    Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by:

  • Submitting a formal appeal letter to the Editor-in-Chief
  • Providing a clear rationale and evidence (e.g., misinterpretation of data or reviewer bias)

Appeals are reviewed independently by another editor or a member of the editorial board. The decision on appeal is final.

6.10           Reviewer Recognition

BER acknowledges the critical role of peer reviewers by:

  • Offering reviewer certificates upon request
  • Encouraging reviewers to register their reviews on platforms like Publons
  • Including active reviewers in the annual reviewer acknowledgment list

6.11           Conflicts of Interest

All parties involved in the review process must declare any potential conflicts that may affect the objectivity of the evaluation.

6.11.1 For Reviewers:

Conflicts may include:

  • Personal or professional relationships with the authors
  • Recent collaboration with the authors
  • Financial interests related to the manuscript

6.11.2 For Editors:

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where conflicts exist and transfer editorial responsibility to a neutral party.

6.12           Reviewer Misconduct

BER takes reviewer misconduct seriously. Examples include:

  • Breaching confidentiality
  • Using manuscript content for personal research
  • Delaying reviews deliberately
  • Providing unconstructive or biased feedback

Consequences may include removal from the reviewer database and notification to the reviewer’s institution.

6.13           Post-Publication Review and Corrections

In the event of errors identified after publication:

  • BER may issue corrections, retractions, or editorial notices.
  • Peer reviewers may be consulted in post-publication investigations if necessary.
  • BER supports post-publication discussion and critique, provided it follows academic standards of civility and evidence-based argument.

6.14           Transparency and Best Practices

BER is committed to transparent peer review by:

Publishing reviewer guidance and expectations on the journal