Editorial Process

On this page: Summary of the editorial process | Online submission | Peer review | Post-acceptance | E-proofs

Summary of the editorial process

  • The author submits a manuscript and it receives a tracking number.
  • The editorial office perform an initial quality check on the manuscript to ensure that the paper is formatted correctly.
  • The Editor-in-Chief is assigned to the manuscript and decides whether to send the manuscript out to review. If the decision is not to send the manuscript for review, the Editor-in-Chief contacts the author with the decision.
  • If the Editor-in-Chief decides the paper is within the Journal's remit, the paper will be assigned to a handling editor.
  • The handling editor selects and assigns peer reviewers. This can take some time dependent on the responsiveness and availability of the reviewers selected.
  • Reviewers are given 14 days from acceptance to submit their reports. Once the required reports are submitted, the handling editor will make a decision recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief based on the comments received. 
  • The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision. 

Authors are able to monitor the status of their paper throughout the peer review process.

Online submission

We only accept manuscript submission via our online manuscript submission system. Before submitting a manuscript, authors are encouraged to consult both the Guide to Authors and Editorial Policies sections of this website to ensure that the paper adheres to formatting and policy requirements – this will help to enable efficient processing of the manuscript once received. 

Peer review

To expedite the review process, only papers that seem most likely to meet editorial criteria are sent for external review. Papers judged by the editors to be out of scope or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review. 

Manuscripts sent out for peer review are evaluated by at least 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.

BJC Reports operates a single-blind peer-review system, where the reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewer reports provided to authors are anonymous. ​By policy then, referees are not identified to the authors, except at the request of the referee.

Once a sufficient number of reviews are received, the Editor will then make a decision based on the reviewers' evaluations. Available decision terms are outlined below:

  • Accept
  • Revise (minor/major revision), with the author addressing concerns raised by the reviewers before a final decision is reached.
  • Reject, but indicate to the authors if further work might justify a resubmission.

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

  1. 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. 
  2. A marked-up version of the manuscript that highlights changes made in response to the reviewers' comments in order to aid the Editors and reviewers. This should be uploaded as a 'related manuscript' file.
  3. A 'clean' (non-highlighted) version of the manuscript.

Anonymity and 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 organizations 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 deplore 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. We cannot, however, guarantee to maintain this confidentiality in the face of a successful legal action to disclose identity.

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, e.g., 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).


Once a manuscript is accepted, the corresponding author will be sent a link to our online portal to complete the Article Processing Charge (APC) payment form, after which your paper will be sent for typesetting. Once this step is complete, the corresponding author will then be prompted to complete the necessary open access Licence to Publish form on behalf of all authors. Government employees from the United States and UK are required to complete relevant government open access license to publish forms which are available via the portal.

Please note that these forms must be completed promptly in order to avoid any delay in the publication of your work. We suggest that the corresponding author “whitelist” emails from the @springernature.com exchange to ensure that these messages are received and that we be notified at acceptance if the corresponding author will be traveling or otherwise unavailable to take action in a timely manner.

For further information on open access publication, funding support, and self archiving visit our Open Access page.


The Springer Nature e-proofing system enables authors to remotely edit/correct your article proofs. The corresponding author will receive an e-mail 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.