Editorial Policies

Section Policies

Articles

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Checked Peer Reviewed

Abstracts

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Checked Peer Reviewed

Supplement

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Checked Peer Reviewed

Editorial

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

What is Peer Review?

Peer review is a central part of publishing quality articles. The purpose of peer reviewing is to have reviewers help a submitted article become stronger by evaluating its quality and relevance to the field, and providing suggestions and advice to authors. Reviewer ethics and responsibilities are posted in our Editorial Policies page.

BCHD’s Peer Review Process
Functional Foods in Health and Disease has a single blind closed review process. Single blind review means that the author is unaware of the reviewer’s identity. This process helps reviewers make impartial decisions and give better criticism to the author, because the reviewer will not be unnecessarily influenced by the author. Closed review means that the reviewers will remain anonymous and the pre-publication history will not be made available.

Submission of a manuscript is first reviewed by a Chief Editor. If the manuscript meets all the basic requirements, the manuscript will be assigned two peer reviewers. The review process takes approximately 2-4 weeks. The reviewers will evaluate the manuscript based on its ability to serve the scientific community, its relevance to the journal, its originality, its technical aspects (such as formatting), as well as its coherence and understandability.

After analysis by reviewers it will be returned to the Chief Editor for last detail checks such as grammar and language, and then sent to the author for revisions. Several correspondences between author, editor-in-chief, and reviewers occur before final manuscript is ready. After all necessary revisions have been made and publication fees have been paid, the manuscript is published. All decisions are ultimately made by Editors-in-Chief and are whom any appeals against rejection should be addressed to.

Peer Reviewers

Authors may suggest peer reviewers via their submission’s cover letter if they wish, however, decisions about whether or not to invite the suggested reviewer(s) is ultimately up to the Editor-in-Chief. Suggested reviewers should not be people whom the author(s) have recently collaborated with or currently work with as colleagues in the same institution. All suggested peer reviewers should have contact information included.

A request for exclusion of certain individuals as peer reviewers is also acceptable, but an explanation must be provided via the submission’s cover letter. Extensive listing of individuals is not acceptable as it may impede the peer review process.

Any intentionally false information (i.e. false reviewer names and/or e-mail addresses) will result in immediate rejection of the manuscript.

Authors wishing to submit a manuscript should also read over all the Editorial Policies under the link “About the Journal”. 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The Journal of Bioactive Compounds in Health and Disease (BCHD) considers publication ethics to be of the utmost importance. In order to uphold the scientific integrity of our journal, we are committed to maintaining high standards of honesty and accuracy in each and every one of our publications. Unethical practices such as plagiarism and falsification of data are not tolerated.

We have outlined below the duties and responsibilities of each major party in the publication process including: editors, authors, and reviewers. This statement was based on the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement by the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

 

References

"Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement." AACE. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2013. Web. 27 May 2015. 

Editors’ Responsibilities

  1. Publication Decisions: After reading comments by the editorial review board, the editor may accept, reject, or suggest changes to the manuscript.
  2. Review of Manuscripts: He/she must perform an initial review of the manuscript in order to check for originality. Then, the editor should send the manuscript in blind peer review form to the editorial board, who at this point, may accept, reject, or suggest changes to the manuscript.
  3. Unbiased Review: The editor must review manuscripts based solely on intellectual and scientific content, and not be swayed by authors
  4. Confidentiality: Prior to publication, manuscripts and related information must be kept confidential.
  5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: BCHD editors may not publish and/or submit manuscript material as his or her own work without the author(s)’ written consent.

Author’s Responsibilities

  1. Reporting Standards: Author’s manuscripts should be an accurate account of their research methods, results, followed by an objective empirical discussion. Manuscripts should follow the guidelines dictated on the BCHD website: http://ffhdj.com/index.php/BioactiveCompounds/index
  2. Originality: Authors must take care to describe only their original work in their manuscripts.
  3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Authors should not submit identical manuscripts or descriptions of the same research to more than one journal simultaneously.
  4. Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge and/or cite all sources that contributed to the manuscript, influenced its research, or helped with its completion.
  5. Authorship: Individuals should be named authors only if they made significant contributions to manuscript conception, design, completion, or analysis. Other significant contributors must be named as co-authors.
  6. Data Access and Retention: Authors should provide original data to BCHD as well as keep copies of this data for reference.
  7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author(s) discovers a significant error in their submitted manuscript, he/she must report the error to the BCHD editor.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

  1. Confidentiality: Reviewers must keep all manuscript information confidential prior to publication.
  2. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should ensure that authors acknowledge all relevant sources used in the study. If reviewers notice suspicious similarity of information between current or prior manuscripts, it must be reported to BCHD’s editor.
  3. Objectivity: Manuscript feedback should be scientifically objective, without bias, clear, and supported by arguments.
  4. Promptness: If a reviewer believes that he/she will not be able to thoroughly read a manuscript within the required time frame, he/she must reported this to the BCHD editor so that the editor can find a replacement reviewer.