MANUSCRIPT REVIEW

Overview

JBPT follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, integrity, and ethical standards of all published manuscripts. Editors ensure all manuscripts are evaluated impartially, without influence from authors’ identities, institutions, or personal relationships. All submissions first undergo initial editorial screening by the Editor or Editorial Team to assess scope, compliance with guidelines, quality, and ethical considerations.  Manuscripts that are out of scope, poorly written, ethically non-compliant, or affected by conflicts of interest may be rejected at this stage, while others may be returned to authors for technical or formatting corrections.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are sent for double-blind review by at least two independent content-expert reviewers, with at least one reviewer based outside Pakistan. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise and absence of conflicts of interest. Authors may suggest up to three potential reviewers, but the Editorial Team retains final authority in reviewer selection. The Editor ensures proper anonymization, provides structured review guidelines, and oversees a fair, timely, and unbiased process.

Evaluation and Decision

Reviewer comments are communicated to authors constructively, and revised manuscripts are assessed to ensure that reviewer and editorial feedback has been adequately addressed. All reports and responses are reviewed by the Editorial Committee before the Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision. Peer-review practices are periodically reviewed, and complex cases, ethical concerns, or conflicts of interest are referred to the Advisory Committee.

Reviewer Responsibilities

JBPT follows ICMJE recommendations for peer reviewers. Reviewers must treat manuscripts as strictly confidential, must not share them, and must destroy all files after review. Reviews should be submitted within three weeks. The use of generative AI tools by reviewers is not permitted without prior permission from the journal, and reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, integrity, and confidentiality of their reports. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest at the time of accepting the review and update them if circumstances change.