Peer Review Process

The journal is committed to publishing high-quality, original research that advances knowledge in its field. To ensure scholarly rigor and maintain ethical standards, all manuscripts undergo a transparent and structured peer review process. The journal implements a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to prevent bias.

This policy applies to all submissions, including but not limited to: Original Research Articles, Reviews, Case Reports, and Short Communications. Manuscripts that do not require peer review (such as Editorials, Errata, Letters to the Editor) will be clearly marked on the journal website, and their publication will be reviewed and approved by the editorial board to ensure compliance with academic norms.

Primarily Review

After a manuscript is submitted, the editorial office first conducts a preliminary review to verify the following aspects:

• Whether the content of the manuscript is consistent with the journal’s scope and academic orientation;
• Whether the manuscript meets the formatting requirements (including title, abstract, keywords, references, figures, and tables);
• Whether the manuscript is complete (including the main text, supporting materials, and separate title page as required);
• Whether there are obvious ethical violations (such as plagiarism, data falsification, or non-compliance with research ethics for human/animal studies).

Manuscripts that fail the initial screening will be rejected directly, and the author will be notified of the specific reasons. This stage is completed within 3–5 working days after submission.

Only manuscripts that pass the initial screen are sent to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) for academic pre-check. Should the EiC be among the authors of this article, the EiC's editorial responsibilities for this manuscript will be relinquished and delegated by the editorial office to another member of the editorial board who has no potential conflict of interest.

The Editor-in-Chief will check the manuscript, including:

• Scope of the journal
• Scientific soundness of the research design and methodology
• Novelty and potential contribution to the field

Based on this assessment, the editor may:

• Reject the manuscript without external review;
• Request clarifications or revisions prior to review;
• Advance the manuscript to external peer review and recommend reviewers.

Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the primary review enter the double-blind peer review process. Reviewers are selected based on the research direction of the manuscript, focusing on the reviewer’s academic expertise, research experience, publication record, and review history. To ensure the rigor and objectivity of the review, each manuscript is assigned to at least 2 independent reviewers with no conflicts of interest. In cases requiring specialized expertise (such as statistical analysis or specific technical fields), additional reviewers may be invited.

Once agreeing to review the assigned manuscript, reviewers will gain full access to the entire manuscript. Reviewers are required to complete the review and submit detailed review comments within 2–3 weeks after accepting the invitation (the review period can be appropriately extended for manuscripts with high complexity, with prior notification to the editorial office). The identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the peer review process. Assigned manuscripts do not contain any identifying information, including names, affiliations, funding sources, or acknowledgments.

Editorial Decision

After collecting all review comments, the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) will make a final decision to ensure fairness and authority. The editorial decision types and feedback requirements are as follows:

Accept: The manuscript meets the journal’s academic standards and requires no or only minor non-substantive revisions. The author will be notified to make the revisions and submit the final version.

Minor Revision: The manuscript has minor deficiencies that can be revised quickly. The author is required to revise the manuscript according to the review comments and submit a revision report (explaining how each comment is addressed) within 1 week. The EiC will review the revised manuscript; if the revisions are satisfactory, the manuscript will be accepted; if the revisions are insufficient, the editor may request further minor revisions or reject the manuscript.

Major Revision: The manuscript has substantive deficiencies (such as flawed methodology, insufficient data, or unclear logic) but has potential academic value. The author is required to revise the manuscript in detail according to the review comments and submit a detailed revision report within 2–4 weeks. The revised manuscript will be sent to the original reviewers for re-review (double-blind mode is still maintained), and the EiC will make a new decision based on the re-review comments.

Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s academic standards (such as a lack of originality, serious methodological flaws, or irrelevant content) or has ethical violations. The author will be notified of the specific reasons for rejection.

All editorial decisions and review comments (anonymized) will be sent to the authors via email, ensuring that the authors fully understand the basis for the decision and can effectively respond to the review suggestions.

Ethical Standards and Integrity

All participants in the peer review process must adhere to international ethical standards:

• Confidentiality: Manuscripts are treated as confidential documents
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers and editors must declare potential conflicts
• Ethical Compliance: Research involving humans, animals, or hazardous materials must comply with applicable regulations
• Misconduct Reporting: Any suspected research misconduct will be investigated following COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal written request with justification and sending an email to contact@bilpub.com. Appeals are handled by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editorial board member to ensure impartiality.

Transparency and AI Policy

All peer review decisions are fully documented in the journal’s submission system

The journal encourages ethical use of AI tools for manuscript preparation, but AI-generated content must be disclosed and cannot replace authorship.

Final Decision and Publication

Once accepted, manuscripts proceed through copyediting, typesetting, and final proofing. The journal ensures high production quality and timely open access publication.