Peer Review Process & Guidelines

• Becoming a reviewer
• Governance
• Peer review policy
  • Type of Peer Review
  • Plagiarism check/Rejections
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Editorial Review Time and Responsiveness
  • Why are Manuscripts Rejected?
  • Editors or Journal Staff as Authors
  • Reviewer’s check list
  • Writing a review
  • What is not reviewed and Author requests
  • Transparent Peer Review (TPR) 
  • Revisions
  • Editorial decisions and appeals
  • Reviewing feature articles, opinions and blog posts
  • Appeals
  • Communication with Reviewers
  • Editor Perquisites

Peer Review  

Type of Peer Review

The default peer review type for BHTY is double blind anonymous peer review. BHTY has added an optional Transparent (Open) Peer Review. See below for details.

The peer review process is internal (carried out by the journal’s editors/editorial board). Potential conflicts of interest are publishd on https://blockchainhealthcaretoday.com/index.php/journal/coi

Becoming a reviewer

Due to the nature of this developing sector, BHTY continually seeks and obtains advice and guidance from outside expert reviewers to enhance the open access peer reviewed journal and ensure appropriate and timely manuscript reviews to promote trusted, ethical scholarly communication and academic contribution to the evolving field. Reviewers are selected based on expertise in blockchain and DLT platforms, information systems, clinical computing, network technologies and biomedical sciences exclusively in the healthcare sector. They are expected to adhere to the standards set by COPE on publication integrity and ethics. BHTY expects reviewers to report the conduct of unethical research or false scientific communications practices. Reviewers will provide prompt, confidential, objective comments and manuscript reviews that contribute to ongoing and final BHTY editorial decisions and best practices. Reviewers will abide by the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers ascribed by COPE. Conflict of Interest (COI) is located here.

Editors are selected either by self-nomination, or by nominations that are made from the Editors-in-Chief, Editorial Board and publisher whereby reviews of letters, curriculum vitaes and interviews are conducted with the candidate and/or colleagues and experts in the field from around the world.  BHTY seeks multidisciplinary experts and practitioners of the highest caliber and passion in the field, and prefers candidates that possess knowledge of academic journal workflow and familiarity with the peer review process.  Occasionally, BHTY will send out a "Call for Reviewers."

To become a BHTY peer reviewer, please send a letter to the editor including attestation of no affiliation(s) with suspected predatory journals or publisher(s) with your CV attached to info@partnersindigitalhealth.com.

The reviewer role includes reviewing manuscripts, providing journal policy advice, identifying topics of interest or new research protocols and innovation, attracting new and established authors and researchers, building awareness for journal, and contributing their own work and expertise in a developing niche specialty field.

Governance

The Managing Editor conducts plagiarism checks, ensures editorial and research writing standards, timely ethical peer review, scholarly guidelines and practices are adhered as ascribed by ICMJE, COPE and WAME. Editor(s)-in-Chief and Associate Editors-in-Chief assess manuscript submission quality,  peer review routing, technical, health innovation, education and market merits, while all editorial board members and reviewers may assess and provide rigorous double blind peer review or transparent peer review (TPR), and provide constructive feedback for authors. All members abide by publishing ethics guidelines ascribed by COPE to ensure the highest standards are adhered to.

How are Reviewers Selected?

Peer review policy

Plagiarism detection/Rejections

BHTY is a member CrossRef and Similarity Check, iThenticate. The Similarity Check plagiarism software is used to verify originality of content at the manuscript submission stage. All submissions are first checked to determine if any, and how much plagiarized content is contained in a manuscript submission by the Managing Editor. If plagiarism is detected, the submission is returned to the author with comment(s) including the reported percent of plagiarized content, or rejected outright by the Managing Editor based solely on the plagiarism check. Editor(s)-in-Chief or Associate Editors-in-Chief will then review and approve papers that pass the plagiarism-check to determine whether the submission should be routed for peer review.

Artificial Intelligence

An expanded policy was introduced by BHTY editors-in-chief and communicated to editors and reviewers.  To read the full article, please visit DOI: https://doi.org/10.30953/bhty.v8.440.

To review the complete BHTY Artificial Intelligence Policy (AI) Policy, please visit https://blockchainhealthcaretoday.com/index.php/journal/AI

Editorial Review Time and and Responsiveness

Papers submitted are subject to rigorous peer review to ensure that the research published is 'good science.' Peer review, and author revisions, are often the lengthiest part of the manuscript review process.

Journals usually ask reviewers to complete their reviews within 3-4 weeks. However, few journals have a mechanism to enforce the deadline, which is why it can be hard to predict how long the peer review process will take. Highly technical papers and papers from niche subject areas can take longer to review.

Manuscripts are sent out for review electronically, and all correspondence takes place via e-mail. Traditional, high-quality peer-review standards are applied to all manuscripts submitted to the journal.

All manuscripts and associated material submitted to BHTY remain confidential while under review and reviewers are informed of this in their agreements, at on boarding, and throughout the review process.

​Supplementary material​s may also be subject to peer review.​ 

BHTY recognizes speed to publication is important to authors. Once a submission has been accepted for peer review, two (2) to three (3) expert reviewers are asked to assess the merits of the work and provide feedback. Reviewer feedback is communicated to the corresponding author by the Managing Editor.

The Managing Editor will reject a submission if a manuscript is poorly formatted, scholarly language communication is deficient, lacks substantiating claims, appears to have large portions plagiarized, or is not referenced in the Vancouver style. If peer reviewers reject a manuscript (based on criteria below), the Managing Editor will alert the corresponding author and send reviewer comments explaining why the manuscript was rejected. If a minimum  of two (2)  reviewers' comments differ,  the Managing Editor will ask the Editors-in-Chief or Associate Editor to make a final determination as to whether to accept or reject a submission upon reviewing all commentary.

Editors are frequency reminded to ensure timely processing of manuscripts Authors are pleased with the service and turnaround as per comments and feedback. THMT publishes four quarterly issues. Once a submission is accepted and paid for, it is scheduled for the next issue. Authors are alerted as soon as a paper is rejected and comments as to why are typically provided. Further, authors may withdraw a paper, but not after it is accepted. Conformations are always provided within a week of the author email.

Why are Manuscripts Rejected?

The Managing Editor will reject a submission if a manuscript is poorly formatted, scholarly language communication is deficient, lacks substantiating claims, appears to have large portions plagiarized, or is not referenced in the Vancouver style. In most cases, the Managing Editor will recommend and communicate correction(s). Editors-in-Chief will reject a submission that rehashes general information already in the public domain. If peer reviewers reject a manuscript (based on criteria below), the Managing Editor will alert the corresponding author and send blinded reviewer comments explaining why the manuscript was rejected. Previously published materials and white papers are not acceptable unless COPE guidelines are strictly followed. Contact the Managing Editor with questions at j.russo@partnersindigitalhealth.com. TPR procedures are outlined below.

Editors or Journal Staff as Authors

Editorial Board Members are required to declare any competing interests and are excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists. Where an Editorial Board Member is author they must declare this in the Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities section on the submitted manuscript. If any other competing interests are identified regarding a specific manuscript, another editor will be assigned to assume responsibility of peer review. These submissions undergo the same review process as any other manuscript. The managing editor ensures no editors that are authors of manuscripts are invited to peer review their own manuscript. Beginning January 2023, a statement will be published identifying any BHTY editorial team members as authors to confirm no involvement in the editorial review decision of a published manuscript. The statement will be located in the "Conflicts" section of the manuscript at the end of the article and preceding the references section. This includes journal ambassadors. 

Reviewer’s check list

BHTY reviewers are expected to recuse themselves if they have financial and non-financial relationships or activities, including the following:

• Prior or current collaborations with the author(s) if known
• Reviewer is a direct competitor
• Reviewer may have a known history of antipathy with the author(s)
• Reviewer may profit financially from the work

Reviewers will not accept a peer review invitation should a relationship or activity conflict exist and will decline the review invitation whereby the managing editor will invite an alternate reviewer.

Writing the review

The purpose of the review is to provide the Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors-in-Chief and Managing Editor with expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript, and authors with clear and concise constructive feedback on how to improve papers. Reviewers will abide by the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers ascribed by COPE.

Comments made are transmitted to the corresponding author.

Peer reviewers have the following possible options for each article:

1. Accept Submission (i.e. no need for any revision)
2.  Revisions Required (i.e. accepted if the author makes the requested revisions)
3.  Resubmit for Review (i.e. accepted or rejected after revisions have been made - paper will be sent out for another peer review round)
4.  Decline Submission (i.e. if the manuscript is substandard)
5.  See Comments (i.e. if the reviewer cannot choose from any of the above)

When asking for revisions, reviewers have two possible goals:

• ask authors to tighten their arguments based on existing data
• identify areas where more data are needed

Reviewers are asked to consider the following when submitting a review:

• What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
• Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
• Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
• Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
• If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
• Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
• Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?
• Who would find this paper of interest? Why?
• If the paper is considered unsuitable for publication in its present form, does the study itself show sufficient enough potential that the authors should be encouraged to resubmit a revised version?

Reviewers will be honest, not offensive in their language, frank and concise. This is not to be confused with criticism.

What is not reviewed and Author requests

Reviewers’ identities are anonymous. BHTY Peer Review is anonymous and double blind. All manuscripts submitted for publication undergo peer review including those submitted by editorial board members, regular columns, features, special issues, and themed issues. Publisher letters, Letters to the Editor, annual Prediction articles, and BLOGS do not undergo peer review. 

Authors can request to exclude a specific reviewer from reviewing their manuscript as long as BHTY peer review process remains intact and a thorough assessment of the manuscript is given. A decision letter is sent to the author when all reviews are received and considered by the Managing Editor after each review round.

Transparent Peer Review (TPR) 

BHTY offers Transparent Peer Review as an optional alternative to traditional double-blind review. Authors may choose to publish the full peer-review history of their manuscript — including reviewer reports and author responses — alongside the final article, giving readers a clear view of the scholarly exchange.

Why TPR?
Transparent peer review strengthens trust in research, supports early-career researcher training, and promotes accountability across authors, reviewers, and editors. It also helps reduce bias, improve review quality, and increase confidence in published findings.

Benefits

• Demonstrates rigorous peer review and provides constructive feedback
• Encourages fairness, transparency, and thoughtful discussion
• Helps educate early-career researchers and new editors
• Enhances trust in medical and digital health research

How It Works

• Authors and reviewers may opt in or out at submission
• Authors indicate their TPR preference in the cover letter
• If any party opts out, the review remains anonymous and double-blind
• Reviewers may sign their reviews or remain anonymous
• Accepted open review reports are published as Supporting Information with the article’s DOI

Notes

• Double-blind review remains the default
• Review materials are released only upon publication
• TPR applies only if the author opts in and the manuscript is accepted
• Reviews from journals not participating in TPR will not be published if a manuscript is transferred

Revisions

The Managing Editor and reviewers assess revised manuscripts to ensure all reviewers' comments were addressed for re-submission review and/or explanations are provided where a suggested revision was not corrected or addressed. Revisions are generally requested if a manuscript is considered appropriate. Minor revisions are usually requested as a final step before acceptance in the production phase. If manuscripts are rejected by reviewers, the Managing Editor will relay anonymous reviewer comments to the submitting author.

Editorial decisions

Should reviewers reject a submission or resubmission, the Managing Editor may alert the Editors-in-Chief (EICs) and Associate Editors-in-Chief to determine whether the EICs believe the submission warrants publication and benefits the sector. The EICs and Managing Editor will, together, make a decision based on the reviewers' comments, and may contact the reviewers to discuss the overall manuscript contribution in the field in more depth. EIC decisions are final.

Appeals

To appeal a decision, authors can contact the Managing Editor and explain the reason(s) for the appeal. When a paper has been revised in response to the review, or when authors appeal against a decision, we ask reviewers to provide commentary.

All appeals are discussed with the Editors-in-Chief and reviewers assigned to the submission.  In the case of disagreement, BHTY may seek external advice on the appeal, but it is most likely the final decision will be left to the Editors-in-Chief.

Only one appeal will be considered. The Editors-in Chief decision will be final.

Reviewing Feature article and Opinion submissions

BHTY reviewers are asked to review these submissions considering the following:

• Is the article relevant and of interest to an international audience?

• Does it address a global and topical subject? Will it be relevant across demographic populations?
• Is the article well written, clear, and easy for a non-specialist?
• Does the reviewer think the article will impact clinicians, researchers, health policymakers, or the public? Will it be widely read, disseminated, or cited? Could it improve public and/or global health? Will media outlets find it news worthy?
• Is the article accurate? Are claims evidence-based?
• Has the author missed anything important?
• Does the article contain new information warranting publication? Does it take a discussion or debate into a new direction? Does it challenge current legacies?
• Is it written in a scholarly format? Is it referenced in the Vancouver style?
• If tables and figures are included, do they help the reader, or hinder topic and focus? How can they be improved?

Appeals

For feature/opinion articles, BHTY editorial judgment for readability and engagement is decidedly important. An appeal is less likely to overturn a BHTY editorial decision for feature/opinion articles. Authors are welcome to submit a detailed rebuttal letter. Only one appeal will be considered. The Editors-in Chief’s decision will be final.

Communication with Reviewers

New editorial team members are sent details regarding basic journal workflow and operations, expectations, requirements and links to COPE and ICMJE to further emphasize familiarity with journal operations, workflow, the importance of ethics, peer review role and expectation and best practices. In addition, the editorial team is alerted when major updates are made to the journal, journal policies or innovations. Editorial team members are elevated and thanked by means of speaking invitations, newsletters, participation in the annual ConV2X journal hosted symposium. Monthly updates are provided to journal leadership. Staff conducts an annual global meeting for suggestions, updates, enhancements, strategy, progress, and growth and information sharing in real time.

Reviewers can obtain rewards through Publons and ReviewerCredits. Annual and periodic outreach and 1:1 interviews are conducted by the publisher for journal and market feedback, trends and guidance. Editorial team members are encouraged to present new journal ideas and concepts to heighten audience engagement, journal education objectives, innovation and market prowess.

Editor Perquisites

Editors lend invaluable expertise, and selfless volunteerism to the journal. BHTY is grateful for their dedication to maintaining high standards and integrity of the scholarly record. It is their passion and commitment that make the journal a high value publication in the field. BHTY extends its appreciation for their commitment, and enduring contributions to advancing the frontiers of research and knowledge. BHTY endeavors to thank them for their service in ways such as:

• Posting names of peer reviewers across social media outlets for recognition and reputation building
• Features participating editors on the Partners in Digital Health speakers bureau
• Offers moderator roles for journal webinars and podcasts
• Offers advisory committee, speaker, and moderator roles at the journal annual symposium
• University APC rate applies for any research article(s) submitted and accepted if an editor is an author
• Shares speaker requests for events the publisher receives
• Provides a forum and network to launch independent initiatives with other global board members