The Bombay Hospital Journal follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest standards of scientific integrity and publication quality.

1. Pre-Review Stage

Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief to assess:

• Completeness and adherence to journal formatting guidelines
• Clarity, language quality, and scientific writing style
• Originality and relevance to the journal’s scope
• Ethical compliance and overall manuscript quality

Subsequently, the manuscript is forwarded to the Scientific Secretary and Specialized Editor for further evaluation of scientific merit and significance.

All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software such as iThenticate.

Manuscripts that do not meet the required standards may be rejected at this stage.
The pre-review decision is further validated by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief and relevant editorial members.

Average timeline: 5–7 days

2. Peer Review Stage

Manuscripts that successfully pass the pre-review stage proceed to formal peer review (Round 1).

• Typically, 2–3 independent expert reviewers are assigned
• Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise
• Evaluation focuses on originality, methodology, scientific accuracy, and clinical relevance

Based on reviewer feedback, the Editor may decide to:

• Accept the manuscript
• Request minor or major revisions
• Reject the manuscript

Revised manuscripts may undergo a second round of review (Round 2) if required.

Editors recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where there is any conflict of interest.

Average timeline: 2–3 months (may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity)

3. Reviewer Invitation & Conflict of Interest

To maintain objectivity, invited reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest, including:

• Direct competition with the authors
• Recent collaboration or institutional association
• Financial or commercial interests related to the work
• Any situation that may impair unbiased judgment

If a conflict exists, an alternate reviewer is assigned.

4. Reviewer Reports & Confidentiality

• Reviewer comments are shared with authors along with editorial decisions
• Reports may be lightly edited for clarity and anonymization
• Reviewer identities remain strictly confidential

The journal follows a double-blind review system, where:

• Reviewers do not know author identities
• Authors do not know reviewer identities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts
• Avoid direct communication with authors
• Refrain from discussing unpublished work

Authors are typically given up to 4 weeks to submit revised manuscripts.

5. Revised Manuscript Evaluation

Revised submissions are assessed by:

• The original reviewers and/or
• The editorial team

Final decisions are based on:

• Adequacy of responses to reviewer comments
• Scientific quality and completeness

Outcomes include:

• Acceptance
• Further revision
• Rejection

6. Proofing and Final Publication

Once accepted:

• Page proofs are sent electronically to the corresponding author
• Authors must return corrected proofs within 48 hours

After final approval, the manuscript proceeds to publication.