Peer Review
Peer Review
As for its editorial policy, the JBMTCT is guided by double-blind peer review, ensuring the anonymity of authors and reviewers during the review process. However, as it progressively aligns with the best practices of open science, the journal accepts manuscripts submitted previously or in parallel to preprint platforms. In these cases, authorship is public, and open peer review will be adopted in single-blind mode, preserving the reviewers' identities.
The publication of an article deposited as a preprint will be considered unpublished and will receive its own DOI, referencing the DOI previously registered on the preprint platform. Likewise, authors will be encouraged to deposit and share the data, codes and/or methods used in the production of the manuscript in repositories, with the responsible author informing the repository location to allow reviewers and editors access whenever necessary. However, the content of material submitted for evaluation cannot have been previously published or submitted simultaneously to other journals.
For manuscript selection, the originality, relevance of the topics, quality of the scientific methodology, and compliance with the journal's editorial standards are evaluated. Submission of manuscripts in disagreement with the format described in this document may result in the return of the manuscript. All JBMTCT content is submitted for peer review.
Manuscripts will be received by the editorial office, which will initially verify the presence of content similarity (plagiarism) with other texts available on the Web using the Similarity Check/iThenticate system. They will also be evaluated for the originality of the submission and the possibility of data or image fabrication or falsification.
In the event of plagiarism or other poor editorial practices, the JBMTCT will follow the guidelines of the “Code of Conduct and Good Practices: Guidelines for Journal Editors” of COPE.
In the event of any complaint or observation of misconduct by any party, the editorial process of the manuscript under investigation will be stopped, and all parties involved will be informed of the reason for this action. The evaluation process may be followed if misconduct is not proven. Otherwise, the manuscript will be withdrawn from the process.
For manuscripts that present little or no similarity in content, a Section Editor (SE) will be appointed, who will appoint from two to four external reviewers (ad hoc reviewers) in a double-blind mode, ensuring complete anonymity.
Such reviewers must have no conflict of interest and must be committed to a fair trial. Their conclusions must be objective and point to relevant articles that have not been cited. Reviewers must also treat articles confidentially. It is considered a conflict of interest when an author (or the institution to which the author is affiliated), reviewer or editor has financial or personal relationships capable of inappropriately influencing their actions, with potential ranging from insignificant to significant in terms of influencing judgment. Not all relationships, however, represent a true conflict of interest, as it depends on whether the individual believes the relationship is affecting their scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consulting, stock ownership, and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest, but conflicts may arise for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.
After receiving the evaluations, the SE will decide on the manuscript in accordance with the evaluators' recommendations, accepting, rejecting or requesting revisions. The manuscript requiring revision will be sent to the author, who must submit a new version along with a letter to the SE, in which they must comment on each reviewer's recommendation. Additional and/or amended paragraphs must be highlighted in the text. If the author disagrees with the evaluator's suggestions, it is necessary to explain the reasons. After verifying that the new version adheres to the recommendations, the SE will issue a final decision or, exceptionally, forward it to another round of evaluation if the changes have not been sufficiently addressed.
The entire process is available to authors at any time through the journal's online management system. In cases where the authors do not agree with the final decision, they may appeal the decision by sending an email to the Editor-in-Chief, who will review the case and may reconsider it if justified. In the published article, the SE conducting the evaluation is identified.
Published articles that contain seriously flawed data, so that their findings and conclusions cannot be trusted, can be retracted in order to correct the scientific record. Additions, corrections and retractions may be requested by the author or initiated by the Editor-in-Chief after discussion with the corresponding author of a given article. Readers who detect major errors in the work of others should contact the corresponding author of that work. All additions, corrections and retracts are subject to the Editor-in-Chief's approval. Small corrections and additions, however, will not be published. The corresponding author of the article must obtain the approval of all co-authors before requesting/submitting additions, corrections and retractions or providing evidence that such approval has been requested. The originally published article will remain on the web, except in extraordinary circumstances.
Recognition of evaluators
The updated list of evaluators is published annually on the journal's website.
