Peer Review Process

JBR employs double-blind review. Reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers. There are at least three or more reviewers for the total number of articles in each issue.
Every manuscript is submitted at least to one Scientific Referees. These referees each return an evaluation of the work to the editor, noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Typically, most of the referees' comments are eventually seen by the author. Reviewers remain anonymous to the authors. The Editor evaluates the referees' comments, her or his own opinion of the manuscript,and the context of the scope of the journal or level of the book and readership,before passing a decision back to the author(s),usually with the referees' comments.Referees' evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript or proposal. The role of the referees is advisory,and the editor is typically under no formal obligation to accept the opinions of the referees.

Revised manuscript submissions should also include a detailed response to the reviewers' comments. This document should list each reviewer's comment followed by the authors' response. Each response should include the page/line numbers where the text changes can be found in the revised manuscript. Note: Revised manuscript files should contain source files, not pdfs.

After acceptance


One set of page proofs (as PDF files) will be sent by e-mail to the corresponding author (if we do not have an e-mail address then paper proofs will be sent by post) or, a link will be provided in the e-mail so that authors can download the files themselves. The authors can be correct the pdf proof, for this you will need to download Adobe Reader version 7 (or higher) available free from Instructions on how to annotate PDF files will accompany the proofs (also given online).