Peer Review Policy

Review model

BORJSS operates double-blind peer review. Authors are not told who reviewed their manuscript, and reviewers are not told who wrote it. Neither party learns the other’s identity at any point, including after publication.

This model is used because it reduces the influence of an author’s seniority, institution or nationality on how their work is judged — a particular concern for a journal publishing research from institutions that are not internationally well known.

It places one obligation on authors: the main manuscript file must be anonymised before submission. Files that identify their authors are returned at desk check. The author guidelines set out exactly what to remove.

Desk assessment

Before review begins, the editorial office checks each submission against four criteria. A manuscript may be declined at this stage without external review, normally within five working days.

• Scope. Does the manuscript fall within the journal’s aims and scope? Work outside it is declined regardless of quality.
• Anonymity. Is the main file free of author names, affiliations, acknowledgements and identifying document properties?
• Completeness. Are all required files and declarations present?
• Originality. Does the manuscript pass similarity screening? See the plagiarism policy.

A desk decline is not a judgement on the research. Where the reason is fit rather than quality, we say so, and suggest a more suitable venue where we can.

Reviewer selection

A handling editor with expertise in the subject area is assigned to each manuscript that passes desk check. They select reviewers on the basis of published expertise in the specific question the manuscript addresses — not general seniority.

Every manuscript receives at least two independent reviews. Reviewers must have no competing interest with the work, which excludes anyone who has:

• Co-authored with an author in the previous three years;
• Worked at the same institution in the previous three years;
• A personal, financial or supervisory relationship with an author;
• A competing manuscript of their own under consideration on the same question.

Reviewers are asked to decline if any of these apply, or if they become aware of one partway through a review. Authors may name reviewers they would prefer be excluded, with reasons; such requests are honoured where the reason is legitimate.

What reviewers assess

Reviewers report against six areas, and are asked to state clearly which of their comments must be addressed and which are suggestions:

1. Originality and contribution — does the manuscript add to what is already established?
2. Methodology — is the design appropriate, and described in enough detail to be repeated?
3. Results and interpretation — are the findings reported clearly, and do the conclusions stay within what the evidence supports?
4. Literature and framing — is the relevant scholarship engaged with, including work that complicates the argument?
5. Presentation — is the structure and language clear enough that the argument can be followed?
6. Ethics and integrity — are ethics approval, funding, competing interests and data availability properly declared?

Reviewers advise; they do not decide. Full guidance is set out in the reviewer guidelines.

Decisions

The handling editor weighs the reports and recommends one of four outcomes. The Editor-in-Chief confirms the decision. Authors receive the full reviewer comments whatever the outcome.

• Accept — publishable as submitted. Rare at first decision.
• Minor revision — small corrections needed; not normally re-reviewed externally.
• Major revision — substantive work needed on method, analysis or argument; normally returns to the original reviewers.
• Reject — the work cannot reach publishable standard through revision, or falls outside scope.

An invitation to revise is not a guarantee of acceptance. A revised manuscript that does not address the substantive concerns may still be declined.

Timelines

These are targets, not guarantees. Where a stage runs materially longer — usually because a reviewer has withdrawn late — the editorial office tells the author rather than leaving them to wonder. Authors may request a status update at any time, quoting their manuscript ID.

Disagreement between reviewers

Reviewers frequently disagree, and that disagreement is useful rather than a problem to be resolved by averaging. Where two reports point to materially different conclusions, the handling editor either:

• Seeks a third independent review, where the disagreement concerns a matter of fact or method that a further specialist can settle; or
• Makes a reasoned judgement between them, explaining to the author which concerns must be addressed and which they may respond to by argument rather than change.

Authors are entitled to disagree with a reviewer. A revision response that explains, with reasons, why a suggested change has not been made is a legitimate response and is considered on its merits.

Confidentiality

A manuscript under review is a confidential document. Reviewers may not share it, discuss it with colleagues without the editor’s permission, cite it, or use its findings to advance their own work. They must not retain a copy after submitting their report.

Reviewers must not enter any part of a manuscript into a generative AI service. Doing so transmits confidential unpublished work to a third party and is treated as a breach of confidentiality. See the AI-assisted writing policy.

Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision they believe rested on a factual error, a clear misunderstanding of the method, or a reviewer with an undisclosed competing interest. Appeals are considered by an editor who was not involved in the original decision.

Disagreement with a reviewer’s judgement is not itself grounds for appeal. The procedure, and what to include, is set out in the complaints and appeals policy.