The peer-review process is double blinded, i.e., the reviewers do not know who the authors of the manuscript are and the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are.

The manuscripts are reviewed for possible publication on the understanding that they are being submitted only to one journal at one time and have not been published, simultaneously submitted, or accepted for publication elsewhere.

The following is the editorial workflow that every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes during the course of the peer-review process:

The entire editorial workflow is performed using the online BioMedSciDirect Publications Manuscript Management System. Once a manuscript is submitted, the manuscript is assessed by a Screening Editor for originality of work, serious scientific flaws and plagiarism.

Thereafter the article is handed over to the editor depending on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the Editors. The editor assess the article and inform the author (through author dashboard) if the article has been accepted for peer review or has been rejected. If rejected, the corresponding author will be informed via an email.

If the editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, it is then sent for peer review (a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 3 external reviews). The reviewers submit their reports in the standard format (provided to them by the IJBMR) to the Editor and also grade the article as follows:

• Exceptional quality article
• High quality article
• Good quality article
• Fair quality article
• Unacceptable in present form
• Unacceptable in any form

When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor in-charge makes one of the following editorial recommendations:

• Publish Unaltered
• Accept after Minor Changes
• Consider after Major Changes
• Reject

Thereafter the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required changes as suggested by the reviewers. In the case of a first decision of major revisions, authors should respond to the reviewers` comments as a separate file in point by point format, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript (as revised file) to the journal by the given time, else the article will stand rejected with status as 'rejected no author reply'.

The Editor reviews the revised manuscript after the changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript is accepted.

The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority to reject any manuscript because of inappropriateness of its subject, suitability to journal, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal. Any manuscript must be recommended by one or more (usually two or more) external reviewers along with the Editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted.

Reviewer identification and evaluation 

Experienced researchers and authors of high quality articles submitted to IJBMR are sent request mails for reviewing articles. Author suggested reviewers are always taken into consideration. Besides this, database searches are done to mark significant research articles and case reports (with topics matching or similar) and those authors are mailed and manuscripts sent, if affirmative. In cases where review reports are not obtained within the stipulated time, after trying three sets of honorary reviewers, a paid peer review is obtained. This is resorted to avoid frustration in author for delaying decisions. Reviewers are graded from 1 to 10 based on promptness, completeness and how useful the comments were in taking final decision on articles (grading is done by the senior Editor in-charge of the article). Dedicated staff positions are there in-house for identifying peer reviewers, searching them by matching the title of articles, noting the promptness of review.

A due acknowledgment for the researchers who have performed the peer-review process for one or more of the manuscripts in the past is made on the journal website. We genuinely feel that without the significant contributions made by these researchers, the publication of the journal would not be possible.