Peer review methodology

External experts are used by BMEW Trust journals to help editors evaluate articles and make decisions. When articles are submitted, they are reviewed, and any that appear to be outside the scope of the journal or otherwise inappropriate for consideration are rejected immediately.

All other original research articles will be submitted for review. Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the topic discussed in the article. They may be chosen from the journal’s Editorial Board or from elsewhere. The journal’s editorial offices and editors will identify and invite appropriate experts to review. Some journals welcome author suggestions, but reserve the right to choose their own reviewers. Similarly, if authors have a valid reason to request that a specific person be excluded from review (for example, because they work in a competing laboratory), they may state this when submitting the article. However, the editors’ decision on the reviewer is final.

The journals use a double-blind peer review process. This means that neither the author’s nor the reviewer’s names are disclosed. Invitations are conveyed to reviewers, and the articles are given only to those who consent to review. The submission system is used to manage the review process. Reviewers are given 2-3 weeks to complete their reviews (some journals set their own deadlines), and reminders are sent. However, the journal cannot guarantee a decision time because reviewers may be late or have difficulty finding the right reviewer. In all cases, the journal editorial office will try to complete the process as quickly as possible. Once the editors have received at least two reviews, they will make their decision.

Ethical peer review – guideline for reviewers

BMEW Trust adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines for Peer Reviewers https://architecture-theory.com/journal-policies/peer-review/ , which serve as a comprehensive guide to peer review ethics.

Reviewers are asked to take note of the following:

A clash of Interest (or competing interests)

If a reviewer believes there is a disparity of interest that might undermine their review, they must notify the editorial office and may be excused from performing the review. The reviewer may be unaware of this until they accept the invitation to review.” Conflicting interests can be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious in nature.” If you are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors, or if you have been mentors, mentees, close collaborators, or joint grant holders within the last three years, you should decline to review. Furthermore, you should not agree to review a manuscript just to see it with no intention of submitting a review, nor should you agree to review a manuscript that is very similar to one you are preparing or considering for another journal.” (From the COPE Guidelines) 

Confidentiality

Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and “refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s benefit, or to disadvantage or discredit others.” Do not include anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring) unless you first obtain permission from the journal. The names of any individuals who assisted with the review should be included so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can be properly recognized for their efforts.” (From the COPE Guidelines) 

Effectiveness

Reviewers are asked to send back their assessments by the requested deadline and to notify the editorial office if there will be any delays.

What reviewers are supposed to do

• Reviewers are requested to evaluate the articles for the following:
• Is there a clear purpose for the article (e.g., a research question)?
• Does the author make appropriate references to previous work in the same field of study?
• Is the methodology appropriate for supporting the research?
• Is the reporting of findings clear and comprehensive (as far as can be determined)?
• Are the tables and figures supporting the text?
• Do the discussions and conclusions accurately reflect the findings?
• Is the title appropriate for this article?
• Is there a suspicion of an ethical violation?

Reviewers are expected to be polite and constructive in their reports, and not to be rude or make unfair criticisms of the work.