Information for Reviewers

Reviewers contribute directly to the scientific credibility and editorial strength of every journal published by Bytran Publishing Services (BPS). Their expertise helps ensure that published research is reliable, clinically meaningful, ethically sound, and relevant to the intended readership. BPS regards peer reviewers as essential collaborators in maintaining high editorial standards across all subject areas.

 

1. Role and Purpose of Peer Review

The review process is designed to provide authors with informed critique that enhances the clarity, accuracy, and impact of their work. A reviewer’s primary responsibility is to evaluate the scientific validity of the submission and to help editors reach fair and balanced decisions. Reviews should aim to improve manuscripts, strengthen scholarly communication, and protect readers from misleading or unsupported claims.

 

2. Accepting or Declining Invitations

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should consider:

  • Whether the subject matter falls within their area of competence
  • Whether they can provide a detailed and timely assessment
  • Whether they have any competing interests that may compromise neutrality

Reviewers who decline an invitation are welcome to recommend alternative experts whose perspectives may be valuable.

 

3. Confidential Handling of Manuscripts

Manuscripts shared for review are confidential documents. They must not be circulated, discussed with colleagues, or used for personal academic advantage. Any notes or copies should be deleted once the review is submitted, unless the editor grants permission or institutional policy requires archival.

 

4. Providing an Effective Review

A constructive review should offer clear, actionable feedback. Reviewers should comment on:

  • The originality and relevance of the research question
  • The appropriateness and transparency of the methodology
  • The sufficiency of detail needed to reproduce the study
  • The presentation and interpretation of results
  • Whether the conclusions are supported by evidence
  • Ethical considerations in study design or data use
  • The clarity and coherence of writing
  • Whether tables, figures, and supplementary files add value

Comments should be specific, evidence-based, and aimed at helping authors revise and clarify their work. Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions.

 

5. Ethical Awareness and Research Integrity

Reviewers should promptly notify the editor if they suspect:

  • Overlap with previously published work
  • Fabrication or manipulation of data or images
  • Lack of ethical approval for studies involving human or animal subjects
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Unsafe or misleading clinical claims

Any concern should be communicated privately to the editor, without making accusations directly to the authors.

 

6. Impartiality and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must remain objective and unbiased. They should decline assignments where personal relationships, academic competition, financial interests, or prior collaboration could influence judgment. BPS expects reviewers to disclose any potential conflicts immediately.

 

7. Timeliness and Communication

Reviewers are asked to complete their assessments within the timeframe stated in the invitation. If more time is needed, the editorial office should be informed as early as possible. Delays in review can slow the publication process and affect authors’ academic progression, especially in clinical and biomedical contexts.

 

8. Professionalism in Reviewer Reports

Feedback should be courteous, constructive, and grounded in academic reasoning. Personal criticism, unfounded speculation, or dismissive language is not acceptable. A well-structured report typically includes:

  • A brief summary of the manuscript’s aims
  • Major comments on methodology or interpretation
  • Minor comments on clarity, organisation, or terminology
  • A final recommendation to the editor

 

9. Reviewer Recognition

BPS acknowledges the invaluable service reviewers provide. Reviewers may request annual certificates of contribution or update their records in academic profiles such as ORCID, Publons, or institutional activity logs. Although reviews remain confidential, BPS actively promotes recognition of peer review as a vital academic contribution.

 

10. Support for Reviewers

Reviewers who require additional help after consulting the guidance above may contact the editorial office directly through the official BPS website. The editorial team will provide clarification on policies, ethical concerns, or procedural questions as needed.

 

11. Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Review Process

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or any part of their content into artificial intelligence tools that store information or use submitted text to train models. Manuscripts are confidential documents and must not be processed by tools that retain or reuse data. Artificial intelligence may be used only for personal grammar checking or language refinement of the reviewer report, and only if no part of the manuscript is included. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and independence of their evaluations.