Manuscript Review

The review process for manuscripts submitted to BJHP follows the Submission Guidelines for Authors.

It is prohibited to submit the manuscript or technical note, in whole or in part, to any other journal. Responsibility for the content of the articles lies solely with the respective authors. All authors must agree to the submission of the work, with the corresponding author bearing responsibility.

Any restrictions regarding the review by potential reviewers must be stated at the time of submission, outside the body of the manuscript, in the letter to the editor.

The manuscript review process consists of three stages:

1) Preliminary formal review by the Administrative Office: Upon receipt, the manuscript is checked to ensure it meets the formal requirements outlined in the Submission Guidelines for Authors (available under the “Submission” tab). If all requirements are met, the manuscript proceeds to the second stage. Otherwise, it is returned to the authors, who have up to 15 days to make revisions and resubmit. If they do not resubmit within this period, the submission will be considered a new submission.

2) Peer Review: Once the associate editor in charge has verified that the manuscript fits within the journal’s scope, it is forwarded to at least two (2) reviewers. The reviewers’ reports are evaluated by the responsible associate editor, and the initial decision (Report 1) is forwarded to the corresponding author to revise the manuscript, if necessary. At this stage, the manuscript may be accepted without changes, accepted subject to revisions (major or minor), or rejected.

3) Revision by the authors and final decision by the responsible associate editor: A manuscript accepted subject to revisions must be revised by the authors. After making the necessary revisions to address the reviewers’ requests, the corresponding author must submit the new version of the manuscript within 20 to 90 days, as specified in Review Report 1, along with a response letter addressing the reviewers’ comments. Based on these documents, the responsible associate editor issues the final decision, which may be to accept or reject the manuscript for publication. The author may request an extension of the deadline, if deemed necessary, in the event of a request for major revisions. If the deadline is not met, the submission process will be canceled.

At the end of the process, the average time between submission and acceptance will be 45 to 120 days.

Peer review consists of an evaluation of objective aspects and merit, including verification of the following items:

• Originality of the text (including verification of possible plagiarism);
• Scientific originality and relevance of the study’s objective(s) and result(s);
• Introduction providing a clear rationale and hypothesis based on data from the literature;
• Appropriate methodology to achieve the objectives;
• Ethics Committee approval protocol number, when applicable;
• Registration of the work in the National System for the Management of Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (SisGen), when applicable;
• Tables, charts, figures, and/or images, along with their respective titles and captions, clearly representing the results and being self-explanatory;
• A discussion written in light of the literature and a conclusion directly related to the results obtained;
• Disclosure of conflicts of interest, financial support, and acknowledgments provided after the conclusion;
• Up-to-date, comprehensive, and relevant bibliographic references; a maximum of 50 citations, preferably from the last 20 years.

Evaluation of Technical Papers

The evaluation process for technical papers submitted to BJHP will comply with the specific guidelines for submitting technical papers, the template provided by the journal, and the current editorial guidelines.

Technical notes must be applied in nature, have a technical and scientific basis, be relevant to the scope of BJHP, and have the potential to guide practices, inform decisions, improve processes, systematize recommendations, or promote the translation of knowledge for professionals, managers, researchers, students, and other interested audiences.

The evaluation of technical notes will include::

1. Preliminary evaluation by the Administrative Office to verify compliance with formal requirements and the specific BJHP template;
2. Editorial evaluation of scope and relevance, conducted by the responsible associate editor;
3. Technical-scientific evaluation by at least one (1) ad hoc reviewer with experience relevant to the topic;
4. Revision by the authors, when requested, to be completed within the deadlines set by the responsible associate editor, accompanied by a response letter addressing the recommendations received;
5. Final editorial decision, under the responsibility of the responsible associate editor.

At the discretion of the responsible associate editor, the technical report may be forwarded to a second ad hoc reviewer, particularly in cases of greater technical complexity, the need for additional specialized evaluation, doubts regarding the robustness of the recommendations, potential conflicts of interest, or differences in interpretation.

The evaluation will consider adherence to the scope of the BJHP, the relevance and applicability of the topic, the quality of the technical and scientific rationale, the currency of the references, the clarity of the recommendations, ethical, legal, and regulatory compliance, the originality of the text, the disclosure of conflicts of interest, and compliance with the journal’s specific template.

Approved technical notes will be published in a dedicated supplement of the BJHP, in accordance with the journal’s editorial workflow and established criteria.