Manuscript Review

The evaluation of manuscripts submitted to the BJHP follows the Submission Guide for Authors.

Submission of the work, in whole or in part, to any other journal is prohibited. Depositing a scientific article on a recognized preprint server is not equivalent to simultaneous submission and does not affect the requirement of prior non-publication set by the journal, under the terms of the Repository Deposit and Self-Archiving Policy. Responsibility for the content of the works lies solely with their respective authors. All authors must agree to the submission of the work, and the corresponding author is accountable for it.

Any restrictions on potential reviewers must be stated at submission, outside the text of the manuscript, in the letter to the editor.

Manuscript evaluation comprises three stages:

1. Preliminary formal assessment by the Administrative Secretariat: on receipt, the manuscript is checked against the formal requirements set out in the Submission Guide for Authors (available on the Submissions tab). At this stage, the work also undergoes originality and textual similarity screening by means of dedicated software, in accordance with the Plagiarism and Textual Similarity section of the Editorial Policies. 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 adjustments and resubmit. If they do not do so within this period, any later submission will be treated as a new one.
2. Peer review: once the Associate Editor in charge has confirmed that the manuscript falls within the journal's scope, it is sent to at least 2 (two) ad hoc reviewers. The reviewers' reports are assessed by the Associate Editor in charge, and the initial outcome (first decision letter) is sent to the corresponding author so that the manuscript may be revised, where 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 Associate Editor in charge: a manuscript accepted subject to revisions must be revised by the authors. Once the reviewers' requests have been addressed, the new version of the manuscript must be sent by the corresponding author within 20 to 90 days, as stipulated in the first decision letter, together with a letter responding to the reviewers' reports. On the basis of these documents, the Associate Editor in charge issues the final decision, which may be acceptance or non-acceptance for publication. An extension may be requested by the author, if deemed necessary, in the case of a major revision. If the deadline is not met, the submission process is cancelled.

Overall, the time between submission and acceptance averages between 45 and 120 days.

Dates of acceptance and publication

The date of acceptance is the date on which the editorial decision to accept the work is issued. The date of publication is the date on which each approved work is individually made available on the BJHP website, in accordance with the continuous publication system adopted by the journal.

Both dates are recorded in the metadata of the work and shown on the page of the scientific article or technical note. The date of acceptance is the point from which authors may deposit the accepted version in repositories, with no embargo, in accordance with the Repository Deposit and Self-Archiving Policy.

Items verified in peer review

Peer review comprises the assessment of formal aspects and of scientific merit, verifying the following items:

• Originality of the text (including screening for possible plagiarism);
• Scientific originality and relevance of the objectives and results of the work;
• An introduction presenting a clear rationale and hypothesis grounded in the literature;
• Methods adequate to achieve the stated objectives;
• Approval protocol number issued by a Research Ethics Committee, where applicable;
• Registration of the work with the Brazilian National System for the Management of Genetic Heritage and Associated Traditional Knowledge (SisGen), where applicable;
• Tables, charts, figures, and images, together with their respective titles and legends, clearly representing the results and being self-explanatory;
• A discussion written in the light of the literature and a conclusion directly related to the results obtained;
• Declaration, after the conclusion, of any conflicts of interest, financial support, and acknowledgments;
• Bibliographic references that are current, comprehensive, and pertinent; a maximum of 50 citations, preferably from the past 20 years.

Evaluation of technical notes

The evaluation of technical notes submitted to the BJHP follows the Submission Guide for Technical Notes, the template provided by the journal, and the editorial guidelines in force.

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

The evaluation of technical notes comprises:

1. Preliminary assessment by the Administrative Secretariat, to verify compliance with the formal requirements and with the specific BJHP template;
2. Editorial assessment of scope and pertinence, carried out by the Associate Editor in charge;
3. Technical and scientific assessment by at least 1 (one) ad hoc reviewer with experience relevant to the subject;
4. Revision by the authors, where requested, to be carried out within the deadlines set by the Associate Editor in charge, accompanied by a letter responding to the recommendations received;
5. Final editorial decision, under the responsibility of the Associate Editor in charge.

At the discretion of the Associate Editor in charge, the technical note may be sent to a second ad hoc reviewer, particularly in cases of greater technical complexity, where additional specialized assessment is needed, where there is doubt as to the robustness of the recommendations, where a potential conflict of interest exists, or where the reviewers disagree.

The assessment will consider adherence to the scope of the BJHP, the relevance and applicability of the subject, the quality of the technical and scientific foundation, how current the references are, the clarity of the recommendations, ethical, legal, and regulatory adequacy, the originality of the text, the declaration of conflicts of interest, and compliance with the journal's own template.

Approved technical notes are published in a dedicated BJHP supplement, in accordance with the editorial flow and the criteria defined by the journal.