Reviewer Guidelines

All manuscript handling is conducted through the online editorial platform: balkanmedj.manuscriptmanager.net. Reviewers access their personal worklists and decision forms through the same system.

• Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent external reviewers.
• Review reports are synthesized by the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board before final decisions are rendered.
• Decisions are based on scientific importance, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and journal fit.
• For reporting and manuscript-structure standards, reviewers may consult the Instructions to Authors.

Current workflow timing:

• Editorial evaluation process: about 1 week.
• Editorial decision: approximately 8 days.
• Peer-review process: average 34 days.

Peer-review performance dashboard (January 01, 2025 to December 31, 2025):

These indicators are reported to support transparent, benchmark-driven editorial practice.

Reviewer reports are expected to assess each submission across the following decision domains:

• Originality and contribution to the field
• Methodological and statistical robustness
• Scientific and clinical importance
• Overall reporting quality and clarity
• Ethical integrity
• Suitability for Balkan Medical Journal readership

Professional obligations:

• Disclose any potential competing interest before accepting the invitation.
• Treat manuscripts as confidential. Do not share, discuss, or use any material until publication.
• Decline promptly if the manuscript is outside your expertise or timely review is not feasible.
• Provide clear, constructive, evidence-based comments that support editorial decisions and author revision.
• Flag suspected research/publication misconduct (for example unethical design, duplication, or plagiarism).
• The journal follows the COPE flowchart in suspected reviewer-misconduct cases and expects adherence to COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

The journal applies international ethics frameworks (COPE, ICMJE, CSE White Paper, WAME, WMA, ORI) whenever misconduct is suspected.

Plagiarism is not accepted. Submissions are screened with similarity-detection tools (including iThenticate and related systems) at least twice: during evaluation and after acceptance. Editors may share screening findings with reviewers when relevant to editorial assessment.

For research manuscripts, ethics committee approval is required in line with Declaration of Helsinki and accepted international standards for human and animal research.

• If ethics approval is missing, the case is assessed under COPE guidance (Guidance for Editors: Research, Audit and Service Evaluations).
• If approval is required but not provided, review cannot proceed and the manuscript is rejected; institutions or relevant bodies may be informed when necessary.
• If editorial assessment indicates approval may be exempt, authors must provide either ethics approval or independent exemption documentation under local integrity standards.
• If neither approval nor exemption documentation is provided, the manuscript is rejected.

Human studies must state informed consent procedures. Informed consent is also required for case reports. Recognizable patient images require written publication permission. Manuscripts should clearly document measures used to minimize pain, harm, and distress in human and animal research. The journal may request ethics approval documentation during review.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate submissions for alignment with SAGER recommendations and to encourage precise sex/gender reporting.

Minimum SAGER checks:

• Sex should be used for biological attributes; gender for sociocultural dimensions.
• Title and/or abstract should specify to which sex(es) the study applies, when relevant.
• Background should state whether sex/gender differences are expected.
• Methods should describe how sex/gender were incorporated in study design.
• Results should provide sex/gender-disaggregated data where appropriate.
• Discussion should interpret sex/gender findings; if analysis is not performed, the rationale should be stated.

For manuscript format and reporting standards, reviewers may consult the Instructions to Authors. The following structured checklist may be used in reviewer reports:

1. Please state any conflict(s) of interest that you have in relation to the review of this manuscript (state "none" if not applicable).
2. Do you suspect any research or publication misconduct? If yes, indicate details.
3. Does the manuscript contain new and significant information to justify publication?
4. Is the title of the article appropriate?
5. Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
6. Is the problem significant and concisely stated?
7. Are the methods described comprehensively?
8. Is the results section clear and satisfactory?
9. Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
10. Is adequate and current reference made to other work in the field?
11. Is the language acceptable?
12. Please rate the priority for publishing this article (1 highest, 10 lowest).
13. Is the appropriate terminology used in the text?
14. Are figures and/or tables sufficient?
15. Is it necessary to shorten the article?

Reviewer recognition: The journal identifies reviewers through bibliographic databases and qualified author suggestions. Reviewer names are acknowledged annually in the last issue and on the website after each issue. Performance-based reviewer awards are planned as part of ongoing reviewer development and recognition.