All articles will be processed through editorial board review for matters related to ethics, conflict of interest scientific validity and other relevant matters. This will be followed by double blinded pear review process.

1. Journal possesses a panel of seven members, who are by their own rights experts in the key areas of focus of JABLM. Furthermore, the Journal Editorial Board allows the authors to submit their options for three reviewers based on their expertise on that field. However, selection of reviewers is the sole discretion of the Editorial Board members and is kept confidential from the authors.

2. Identity of reviewers is not disclosed on journal website to avoid arising of undue bias and/or potential conflict of interest issues.

3. Members may be added to the panel as per discretion of Editorial Team.

4. All reviewers to strictly follow the “Reviewer Guidelines” described below:

Reviewer guidelines :

1. General guidelines :

 a.  Does the article match area of expertise? Reviewer to accept the responsibility only if he/she feels able to provide a high-quality review.

b. Does reviewer have a potential conflict of interest? This should be disclosed to editor at the time of response.

c. Does the reviewer have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before committing, he/she must make sure that he./she will be able to  meet the deadline.

d. Reviewer must respond to the invitation ASAP (even if it is to decline) – a delay in decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for the author. If reviewer does decline the invitation, it would be helpful if he/she could provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

2- Managing the review :

a. Confidential material :If the reviewer accepts,he/she must treat the materials received as confidential documents. This means he/she cannot share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, he/she also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.

b. Reviewer is required to access the paper and deliver the review, by clicking on the link sent in the invitation email to him/her,which will bring him/her to the submission/reviewing system.

c. Journal-specific instructions: While reviewing,he/she must make sure to become familiar the journal-specific guidelines (these will be noted in the journal’s guide for authors available on the journal’s homepage).

3. Key areas of paper to be considered during review: 

a. Methodology: Sound/unsound, Credited/discredited

b. Missing processes known to influence the area of reported research

c. A conclusion drawn contradicting the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript

d. Robustness of research data and drawn conclusions

e. Ethical considerations

4. Structuring the review

The review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. It will also aid the author and allow them to improve their manuscript. Giving overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Reviewer comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any bias generating, controversial or hurtful remarks.

Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. Reviewer should be able to lucidly explain and support his/her judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind the comments. He/she should indicate whether the comments are personal opinions or are reflected by the data and evidence.

5. Reviewer recommendation

Reviewers to give recommendation under the following headings [with justifiable reasoning]:

a. Accept without revision

b. Accept with revision

c. Reject

Editorial board will communicate reviewer opinions alongwith final decision to authors.

6. Final decision:

Editor will ultimately decide whether to accept or reject the article

7. Confidentiality clause :

Reviewers to keep in mind that, even after finalizing thereview, the article and any linked files or data must be treated as confidential documents. This means that he/she is not permitted to share them or information about the review with anyone without prior authorization from the editor.

Finally, we take the opportunity to extend our sincere and heartfelt thanks to our esteemed reviewers, behalf of the journal, editors and author(s) for the time and effort invested by them to give their valuable input(s) to the article.