This journal uses a single-anonymised model of peer review. The author does not know the identity of the reviewers, but the reviewers know the identity of the author.
All submissions are initially assessed for suitability by either the Editor-in-Chief, a handling editor or editorial board member. After the initial assessment, submissions are single blind peer reviewed by at least one independent, anonymous expert referee and the assigned handling editor. Read further details on Cambridge Core about what to expect during peer review.
Revised submissions may be subject to the same review process as original submissions. The editors reserve the right to approach additional reviewers as needed. Decisions on revised submissions may also be based entirely on the assessments of the Editor-in-Chief and/or Handling Editor.
Interviews, Correspondence, Obituary and Book Review articles are not subject to single blind peer review. These article types are published based on editor selection.
Recommended reviewers are treated as suggestions only and there is no guarantee they will be approached.
Authors with grave concerns about potential reviewers should write to the journal to explain why they would like reviewers to be excluded. The journal editors reserve the right to invite excluded reviewers at their discretion.
The author and reviewer should not have any contact without the permission of the journal during the peer review process and before a final decision has been made. The system is set up to blind the reviewer name to the author. If the reviewer includes their name in the review it may be visible to the author.
No person is permitted to take any role in the peer-review of a paper in which they have an interest, defined as follows: fees or grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in, or any close relationship with, an organisation whose interests, financial or otherwise, may be affected by the publication of the paper.
When editorial board members of this journal submit papers, the journal follows the below process:
- Editorial board members include a declaration of interest statement in their submission stating their role with the journal.
- Editorial board members submit to the journal via ScholarOne and do not take part in the review or decision-making process regarding their own paper.
- Editorial board members who have submitted papers to the journal are blinded from accessing information on their paper in the system and are notified of decisions in the usual way.
Appeals and Complaints
If an author believes the process leading to the rejection of their paper was not followed correctly, an appeal letter can be submitted by responding to the decision email directly or contacting BJPBulletin@rcpsych.ac.uk.
To have an appeal considered, please provide full details regarding your reasoning for the appeal letter. All appeals are reviewed and discussed by the BJPsych Bulletin Appeals Group, with a final decision subsequently communicated to the author via email. We can consider only one appeal per manuscript.
Please direct all complaints to the Editor-in-Chief or the editorial office at BJPBulletin@rcpsych.ac.uk.