Peer review plays a significant role in the publication of scholarly articles through assessment of validity, quality, and originality of submitted manuscripts. There are three types of peer review: “open”, “single blind” and “double blind”.
The “BUP Journal” supports the double-blind peer review.

Peer review process

1. A corresponding author submits a manuscript and a Cover letter, signed by all authors (the manuscripts are sent via e-mail). At the initial stage, a Managing Editor checks the structure, spelling and compliance of manuscript with all submission guidelines, plagiarism, etc. If the manuscript does not comply with the abovementioned, then it should be rejected.
2. At the next stage, the manuscript is passed to an Editor, who determines its potential interest for readers, importance, and relevance for scientists. Also, an Editor assesses correspondence of the manuscript to journal's scope, as well as its compliance with the requirements of the journal.
3. Manuscripts that do not match these criteria, as well as scientifically poor manuscripts, should be rejected without further peer reviewing.
4. If the manuscript complies with the requirements of the journal, then the Editor assigns a Handling Editor, responsible for peer review, who sends the manuscript for double blind peer review to two (usually) or more (if necessary) reviewers. The choice of peer-reviewers is based on their expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and previous experience (e.g. Ph.D. rank and relevant publications).
5. The invited reviewers should accept indispensable terms and conditions in order to exclude conflict of interests, confirm their competence, concerning the scope of the manuscript, and specify definite terms of reviewing. Then they decide to accept or decline the invitation. In case of declining they can recommend alternative reviewers. In case of accepting they should prepare a Referee Report. All manuscripts are double blind peer-reviewed, which means that reviewers do not possess any information about the authors’ identities and vice versa. Also, at this stage the author should be informed that the manuscript had been sent for double blind peer review.
6. Afterreviewing,theHandlingEditorexaminesRefereeReportsand,insome cases, can invite an additional reviewer in order to get an extra opinion.
7. The authors are provided with reviewers’ comments (anonymously). After that, the revised manuscript passes the second review by Handling Editor (also manuscripts can be re-sent to reviewers after author(s)’ revision).
8. At the last stage Handling Editor provides the Editor with the information about the reviewing process and sends recommendations, concerning manuscript's publication. The final decision is taken by the Editor.
9. The authors are informed about the results of reviewing. They can be provided with Referee Reports without identification of the reviewers, if needed. Authors can also appeal against editorial decision, providing their own arguments and explanations.
10. In case of manuscript acceptance, the publication process starts. If rejected, the manuscript is sent to the author(s).