Scientific articles submitted to the BJHP are assessed by at least 2 (two) ad hoc reviewers under a single-blind model, in which the reviewers' identities are withheld from the authors. The assessment is carried out on the basis of the Reviewer Guide, which sets out the Roles and Responsibilities of Reviewers. Where the reviewers' reports diverge, or where the Associate Editor in charge considers it necessary, a third reviewer may be appointed.

Technical notes submitted to the BJHP are assessed under the same model, by at least 1 (one) ad hoc reviewer with knowledge and experience relevant to the subject. At the discretion of the Associate Editor in charge, a second reviewer may be appointed, particularly in cases of greater technical complexity, where additional specialized assessment is needed, where the reviewers disagree, or where there is doubt as to the robustness of the recommendations presented.

The BJHP gives priority to appointing external reviewers with no institutional ties to the authors of the work under assessment. On accepting an invitation to review, reviewers declare the absence of any conflict of interest that might compromise their impartiality and undertake to maintain confidentiality and non-disclosure regarding the content of the work assessed. The use of generative artificial intelligence tools by reviewers is subject to the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence section of the Editorial Policies.

Eligible to serve as reviewers are professionals in the health and biological sciences, faculty members, and researchers, whether or not registered with the CRF/MG, who hold at least a master's degree from a stricto sensu graduate program, have an ORCID record and a curriculum vitae registered on the Lattes Platform, and can demonstrate experience in scientific publication and/or completed supervision of scientific work related to the subject of the review, in accordance with the editorial standards of the BJHP and the principles of ethics, confidentiality, impartiality, and integrity in peer review.

Peer review is a collaborative, unpaid task through which reviewers inform the decision of the Associate Editor in charge.