Peer Review Proccess

All articles submitted to this journal are subject to Double‑Blind Peer Review, and only manuscripts that complete this process are accepted for publication. The peer review procedure is designed to ensure the scholarly quality, originality, and integrity of the published work, in line with internationally recognized best practices in scholarly publishing.

Initial Editorial Screening

In the review process, JoBM involves writers (authors), editors, section editors, and reviewers in a clearly structured editorial workflow. Every submitted manuscript is first checked by the Editor‑in‑Chief or a designated Handling Editor to evaluate its alignment with the journal’s focus and scope, adherence to the JoBM writing guidelines, and compliance with publication ethics, including plagiarism screening using appropriate similarity-detection software. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be returned to the authors without external review or may be invited for technical revision before entering double‑blind peer review.​

Double‑Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers under a double‑blind peer review model, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another to maintain confidentiality and preserve objectivity. Reviewers are selected based on their subject‑matter expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest. They assess the content and novelty of the manuscript using the criteria stated in the journal’s Article Assessment Form for Reviewers, including originality and contribution to the field, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, and adequacy of references. Each review round typically takes approximately 1–2 weeks, depending on the reviewer's availability and the complexity of the submission.​

Editorial Decision and Revisions

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the authors’ responses, the Editor‑in‑Chief or a designated Handling Editor makes the final editorial decision (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject) in accordance with the journal’s editorial policy. Authors are required to submit a detailed, point‑by‑point response to reviewers and to revise the manuscript accordingly within the specified timeframe. For manuscripts that are ultimately accepted, and provided that authors respond promptly and adequately to all revision requests, the average time from initial submission to publication is approximately 8 weeks.

Reviewer Recognition through ReviewerCredits

To acknowledge the essential contribution of peer reviewers and to promote timely, high‑quality reviews, this journal integrates a reviewer‑recognition service (ReviewerCredits). After completing a review, eligible reviewers may register and claim their review activity in their personal ReviewerCredits account, thereby receiving verifiable credit that can be used as documented evidence of scholarly service and professional engagement. This recognition mechanism operates without compromising the confidentiality of the double‑blind peer review process: only the fact that a review has been performed is recorded, while the content of the review and the identities of the authors remain confidential.

​

Commitment to Ethical Standards

The journal adheres to international standards on publication ethics and peer review (for example, guidelines issued by recognized editorial and ethics bodies), including policies on confidentiality, fair and unbiased evaluation, management of conflicts of interest, and the handling of research and publication misconduct. These principles are detailed in the journal’s publicly available Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, which is accessible on the Publication Ethics webpage. All participants in the review process, Editors‑in‑Chief, Handling Editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to comply with these principles to maintain a transparent, accountable, and trustworthy editorial process.​