•  
  •  
 

Peer review process

BAU Journal – Society, Culture and Human Behavior (BAUJ-SCHB) operates a rigorous double-anonymized peer-review process designed to support the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and academic integrity of published research.

Contents

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief, a designated editor, or the relevant Section Editor. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for:

  • alignment with the journal's Aims and Scope;
  • originality and scholarly relevance;
  • overall academic and methodological quality;
  • compliance with the journal's submission and manuscript-preparation requirements;
  • adherence to ethical and publication-integrity standards; and
  • suitability for external peer review.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, do not meet the required scholarly or ethical standards, or fail to comply substantially with submission requirements may be declined without external peer review.

{ top }

External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, subject expertise, research experience, independence, and suitability to evaluate the manuscript.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers through the submission system or in their cover letter. The journal has no obligation to use suggested reviewers and reserves the right to select alternative reviewers. Authors may also identify individuals who they prefer not to review the manuscript, provided that a reasonable justification is supplied. The final selection of reviewers remains entirely at the discretion of the journal.

{ top }

Double-Anonymized Review

Under the journal's double-anonymized peer-review model:

  • the identities and affiliations of the authors are concealed from the reviewers; and
  • the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

Authors are responsible for preparing an anonymized manuscript and removing information that could reasonably reveal their identity, including identifying details in the main text, acknowledgments, file properties, or supplementary material where appropriate. See the Manuscript Preparation Guidelines for details.

The journal will make reasonable efforts to preserve anonymity throughout the review process; however, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly where the subject matter, datasets, previous publications, or other contextual information may indirectly suggest authorship.

{ top }

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts and associated materials are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, Editorial Board members, and journal staff must not disclose, distribute, discuss, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for purposes unrelated to its evaluation.

Manuscript materials are shared only with individuals whose involvement is necessary for the editorial and peer-review process.

{ top }

Reviewer Independence and Competing Interests

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their independence or impartiality.

A reviewer should decline an invitation where a relevant conflict exists, including significant recent collaboration, close personal or professional relationships, direct competitive interests, or other circumstances that could compromise objective assessment.

Editors are responsible for ensuring, as far as reasonably possible, that reviewers are independent of the authors and the work being evaluated.

{ top }

Reviewer Assessment

Reviewers are asked to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments of the manuscript. Their evaluation may address:

  • originality and significance;
  • relevance to the journal's scope;
  • appropriateness of the research question or objectives;
  • theoretical or conceptual contribution;
  • methodological rigor;
  • validity of the analysis and interpretation;
  • clarity and organization of the manuscript;
  • adequacy and relevance of the literature;
  • transparency of reporting;
  • ethical considerations; and
  • the extent to which the conclusions are supported by the evidence presented.

Reviewers are expected to provide sufficiently detailed comments to assist both the editors in reaching a decision and the authors in improving the manuscript.

{ top }

Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the responsible editor evaluates the reviewers' reports together with the manuscript and may reach one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject and Resubmit, where applicable
  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the responsible editor and, where appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief. Where reviewer reports conflict substantially, the editor may seek additional expert review before reaching a decision.

{ top }

Revision Process

When revision is requested, authors must submit, within the deadline specified in the editorial decision:

  1. a revised version of the manuscript; and
  2. a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed.

Where an author disagrees with a reviewer's recommendation, the response should provide a clear and scholarly justification.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the responsible editor, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions. Additional rounds of revision may be required where necessary.

{ top }

Review Timeline

The journal aims to complete the peer-review and editorial decision process within approximately 16 weeks from the date of submission. This timeframe is indicative and may vary depending on:

  • the availability of suitably qualified reviewers;
  • the complexity and disciplinary nature of the manuscript;
  • the time required for author revisions;
  • the number of review rounds; and
  • exceptional editorial or ethical considerations.

Authors will be informed where substantial delays affect the processing of their manuscript.

{ top }

Final Decision

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the responsible editor or the Editor-in-Chief based on:

  • the reviewers' assessments;
  • the authors' responses and revisions;
  • the manuscript's scholarly contribution;
  • its methodological and reporting quality;
  • its relevance to the journal's Aims and Scope; and
  • compliance with the journal's ethical and publication standards.

Editors and Editorial Board members who have a competing interest in relation to a manuscript must not participate in its review or final decision. Authors who believe a material error occurred may appeal, as described in the Publication Ethics Statement.

{ top }

Acceptance and Publication

Following final acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the journal's production process and is placed in the publication queue for the next available issue.

Before publication, proofs are sent to the corresponding author for final review. At the proof stage, authors should normally limit changes to the correction of typographical, formatting, factual, or production-related errors. Substantial changes to the scholarly content require editorial approval.

Once the Version of Record has been published, changes may be made only through the journal's formal post-publication procedures, including corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or other appropriate editorial notices, as set out in the Publication Ethics Statement.

{ top }