All submissions to the Journal undergo a double blind peer-review process by at least two reviewers with a knowledge and expertise in the respective field. At least one of the reviewers is from a foreign institution – university, or other academic institution, research center, etc.

The BJIEP reviewers must comply with the Journal Code of Ethics.

The review is written in a Review Form and is part of a double-blind peer review process. The review consists of several criteria. For each criterion, the reviewer is asked to assign a rating on the scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = poor and 5 = excellent. The space below each criterion is designated for written comments that would allow the author to improve the manuscript.

The reviewer is asked to provide an overall statement whether the paper should be published or not.

The reviewer is free to make an additional statement disclosed only to the editor.

Reviewers are asked to state any conflict(s) of interest that they have in relation to the review of manuscript:

Reviewers are asked to provide information about their institutional affiliation and position for the editors’ knowledge solely.

In case the evaluation of the manuscript by the two reviewers differs significantly (one suggest the acceptance of the texts, the other suggests rejection and discouragement of further submission), depending on the argumentation of the reviewers the Editorial Board may decide to follow one or the other of the reviewers’ suggestion or select a Master Reviewer of the submitted text.