Peer review

How peer review works

BIOHORIZONS uses editorial assessment and independent peer review under one journal-wide model, coordinated by the relevant specialist section.

01
Submission
A structured manuscript record, files and declarations enter the journal workspace.
02
Technical checks
The editorial office checks completeness, scope indicators, ethics and reporting information.
03
Editorial assessment
An editor evaluates fit, methodological adequacy and whether external review is warranted.
04
External peer review
Qualified independent specialists assess the work and disclose relevant conflicts.
05
Editorial decision
The editor weighs the manuscript, reports and journal priorities and issues a reasoned decision.
06
Revision
Authors respond point by point and identify each change in the revised version when invited.
07
Final decision
The responsible editor accepts, requests further work or rejects the manuscript.
08
Production
Accepted work moves through correction, proof, metadata, DOI preparation and final quality checks.
09
Publication
The version of record and any later notices remain connected in the public article record.

Review model

One standard across every section

Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors; author identities are available to reviewers.

Reviewer and author identities are concealed from one another as far as the submitted record permits.

The journal defines which identities, reports or author responses become public and obtains the necessary agreement.

Decisions

Reviewer reports and the Section Editor’s recommendation inform the final decision, which remains with the Editor-in-Chief.