Editorial Process

  • The author submits a manuscript and the Editorial Office performs an initial quality check on the manuscript to ensure that the paper is in scope and formatted correctly.

  • The manuscript receives a tracking number and the Editor decides whether to send the manuscript out to review. If the decision is not to send the manuscript for review, the author is contacted with this decision.

  • If the paper is deemed to be within the journal's remit, external peer reviewers are selected and assigned by the Editor or Associate Editor (depending on who has been assigned as handling editor). This can take some time depending on the responsiveness and availability of the reviewers selected.

  • Reviewers are given 21 days from acceptance to submit their reports. Once the required reports are submitted, the Editor will make a final decision based on the comments received.

  • With Special Issues, the articles are externally peer reviewed (reviewers invited by the Editor and/or Associate Editor) and the decision-making process is handled by the Editor and/or Associate Editor.

You will be able to monitor the status of your manuscript online throughout the editorial process.

Online Submission

We only accept manuscripts submitted via our online manuscript submission system. Before submitting a manuscript, authors are encouraged to consult both our 'Preparing your manuscript' and 'Ethics and policies' pages. If you have not already done so, please register for an account with our online manuscript system. 

The submission site will guide you through the process, and is broken down into sections – we therefore recommend that you have details of all author affiliations, keywords, figure and table captions, the title and the abstract to hand. Should you have any problems during the submission process, feel free to contact the editorial office at bdjopen@springernature.com.

Peer Review

Manuscripts sent out for peer review are most often evaluated by two independent reviewers. Authors are welcome to suggest independent reviewers to evaluate their manuscript. All recommendations are considered, but the choice of reviewers is at the Editor's discretion. To expedite the review process, only papers that seem most likely to meet editorial criteria are sent for external review. Papers judged by the Editor to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review.

Further information on the peer review process can be found in our section for referees.

The Editor will then make a decision based on the reviewers' evaluations. Available decision terms are outlined below:

  • Accept without modification
  • Accepted if revised (dependent on the authors making necessary editorial revisions)
  • Minor/Major revision (with the authors addressing concerns raised by the reviewers before a final decision is reached)
  • Reject (typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty or out of scope)

Anonymity & Confidentiality

The peer review process is confidential and conducted anonymously. Editors, authors and reviewers are required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process on submitted manuscripts. All details about submitted manuscripts are kept confidential and no comments are issued to outside parties or organisations about manuscripts under consideration or if they are rejected. Editors are restricted to making public comments on a published article’s content and their evaluation.

Upon accepting an invitation to evaluate a manuscript, reviewers must keep the manuscript and associated data confidential, and not redistribute them without the journal’s permission. If a reviewer asks a colleague to assist in assessing a manuscript, confidentiality must be ensured and their names must be provided to the journal with the final report.

We ask reviewers not to identify themselves to authors without the Editor's knowledge. If they wish to reveal their identities while the manuscript is under consideration, this should be done via the Editor; if this is not practicable, we ask authors to inform the Editor as soon as possible after the reviewer has revealed their identity. Our own policy is to neither confirm nor deny any speculation about reviewers' identities, and we encourage reviewers to adopt a similar policy.

We take issue with any attempt by authors to confront reviewers or try to determine their identities. Reviewers should be aware that it is our policy to keep their names confidential and that we do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality.

Regardless of whether a submitted manuscript is eventually published, correspondence with the journal, referees’ reports, and other confidential material must not be published, disclosed, or otherwise publicised without prior written consent.

Selecting Peer Reviewers

Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many factors, based on expertise, reputation, and specific recommendations. A reviewer may decline the invitation to evaluate a manuscript where there is a perceived conflict of interest (financial or otherwise).

Submission of Revisions

Authors submitting a revised manuscript after review are asked to include the following:

  • A rebuttal letter, indicating point-by-point how you have addressed the comments raised by the reviewers. If you disagree with any of the points raised, please provide adequate justification in your letter
  • A marked-up version of the manuscript that highlights changes made in response to the reviewers' comments in order to aid the Editor
  • A 'clean' (non-highlighted) version of the manuscript

Authors will need to submit revisions via the online manuscript submission system as with initial submissions. Once the revision has been submitted, if the Editor feels the comments have been addressed sufficiently and it is suitable for publication, an accept decision will be sent on your article.

Post-acceptance

Congratulations! Once your article has been accepted, you will receive an accept letter outlining any outstanding editorial requests that need to be addressed (usually provision of higher-resolution figures, missing ethics/policy statements etc.) The accept letter will also describe next steps in terms of communications surrounding 

request a signed Licence to Publish form, which we will need in order to ultimately publish your article. The standard subscription vs Open Access options will be explained, and any queries regarding this should be directed to our editorial office. See Open Access & Self-Archiving for more information. Finally, for all articles, we request 3 key points which summarise the benefits or applications of your paper.

Once a manuscript is accepted and typeset, the corresponding author will be prompted via the Springer Nature platform to complete and sign an Open Access License to Publish form on behalf of all authors. Failure to complete the form will result in delay of publication.

Springer Nature does not require authors of original research papers to assign copyright of their published contributions. Authors grant Springer Nature an exclusive licence to publish, in return for which they can re-use their papers in their future printed work. Springer Nature’s author licence page provides details of the policy.

Government employees from the United States, Canada and the UK are required to complete the government open access license to publish form relevant to them.

To facilitate self-archiving we deposit open access articles in PubMed Central and Europe PubMed Central on publication if the article meets the PMC deposition guidelines; full details of our deposition policies are found under the “Self-archiving, manuscript deposition, and digital preservation” information here. Authors are also permitted to post the final, published PDF of their article on a website, institutional repository or other free public server, immediately on publication.

Proofs

The Springer Nature e-proofing system enables authors to remotely edit/correct their article proofs. The corresponding author will receive an email containing a URL linking to the e-proofing site. Proof corrections must be returned within 48 hours of receipt. Failure to do so may result in delayed publication. Please note that extensive corrections cannot be made at this stage.

Post-publication

Congratulations on the publication of your article! Your article will be indexed and abstracted on PubMed Central, Scopus, Google Scholar, amongst others.

We will do our best to publicise your article, but you can also spread the word about your work yourself by sharing links to the paper on your social networks and encouraging readership at your institution. Here's some great ideas on how to make your article stand out:

  • Tweet about your article (don't forget to include the link and @The_BDJ!)
  • Post about your article on Facebook and other social media platforms
  • Add the paper to your list of publications on sites such as ResearchGate
  • Add a link to the paper to your own email signature for a period of time after it is published to maximise the number of readers you reach
  • Email your colleagues about your article
  • Highlight your article in a blog post
  • Update your professional profile.

You can monitor the extent to which your article is being used via article metrics tools. Altmetric is a handy tool which can be used to track what people are saying about your article online. More information about Altmetric can be found at www.altmetric.com.

If you have any questions about publicising your article, do not hesitate to contact a member of the editorial team for help.