The process is single-blind for most journals, meaning that the author does not know the identity of the reviewer, but the reviewer knows the identity of the author. Some journals operate double-blind peer review.

At least two review reports are collected for each submitted article. Suggestions of reviewers can be made by the academic editor during pre-check. Alternatively, the Bulletin of National Institute of Health Sciences's editorial staff will use qualified Editorial Board Members, qualified reviewers from our database, or new reviewers identified by web searches for related articles.

The following checks are applied to all reviewers:

• That they hold no conflicts of interest with the authors, including if they have published together in the last five years;
• That they hold a Ph.D. (exceptions are made in some fields, e.g. medicine);
• They must have recent publications in the field of the submitted paper;
• They have not recently been invited to review a manuscript for the BNIHS journal.

To assist academic editors,  staff handle all communication with reviewers, authors, and the external editor; however, Academic Editors can check the status of manuscripts and the identity of reviewers at any time. Reviewers are given two weeks to write their review. For the review of a revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide their reports within three days. In both cases, extensions can be granted on request.

A paper can only be accepted for publication by an academic editor. Employed BNIHS staff can only reject papers: it would create a clear conflict of interest if they were permitted to accept a paper as their salary is paid for by the APC of accepted articles.

Bulletin of National Institute of Health Sciences journals operate an open peer review option, meaning that the authors have the option to publish the review reports and author responses with the published paper (often referred to as open reports). In addition, reviewers may choose to sign their reports if the review is published, in which case the reviewer's name appears on the review report (referred to as open identity). The default option is for reviewers to remain anonymous and for reports not to be published, reviewers and authors respectively must opt into this option. If an article is rejected no details will be published. Open peer review has the benefit of increasing transparency about the review process and providing further information about the paper for interested readers and we encourage authors to choose an open review.

The impact of your work will have on researchers outside your field and the potential for greater exposure.

Increase visibility, availability, and readership of your work on the internet which attracts good citations.

All the articles are available free to download, distribute & share. For more information visit Open Access Information and Policy

To ensure that your next paper for publication is available online for your peers to read and cite as quickly as possible through using our state-of-art Online Peer Review System consisting of more than 5000 reviewers.