Berliner und Münchener Tierärztliche Wochenschrift Logo

Peer Review

All articles published in the Berliner und Münchener Tierärztliche Wochenschrift (BMTW) are evaluated by at least two independent experts (peer review). This process ensures the high quality of the publications in our journal.


Peer Review Policy

The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

If the editors themselves or members of the editorial board submit manuscripts, these manuscripts are of course supervised by other members of the editorial board. Additionally, our manuscript management system does not allow the editors (resp. members of the editorial office) to access or view their own article other than in their role as an author.


Peer Review Process

First submission: When a manuscript is submitted to BMTW, the Editorial Office first checks that it is appropriate for the journal and assesses the language style, grammar and arrangement. The manuscript can then be rejected (e.g. if the article does not fit the scope of the journal), suspended (e.g. if files are missing or the manuscript needs to be improved), or sent to reviewers.

Reviewer selection: For each manuscript, two independent reviewers are required to make a recommendation. Authors may suggest up to three reviewers. However, the Editorial Office reserves the right to choose other reviewers, based on their field of expertise. Reviewers must not be from the same institution or be research collaborators of the authors. Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. When declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

Review process: The BMTW applies a single-blind review process, i.e. the reviewers know the names and affiliations of the authors, but the authors do not know who is reviewing their manuscript. Reviewers can accept the manuscript, request minor or major revisions, or reject it.

When both reviews are completed, they are assessed by the Editorial Office. Then the Editorial Office sends a decision email to the corresponding author including the comments of both reviewers (without revealing the identity of the reviewers).

Resubmission process: If only minor changes are requested, the authors are asked to improve their manuscript accordingly. In this case, the resubmitted manuscript may only be evaluated by the Editorial Office. If one or both reviewers recommend a major revision, the authors are given the chance to amend their manuscript. In addition to the revised version of the manuscript with changes made visible, they also have to present a point-to-point reply to the reviewers' comments that addresses each comment of each reviewer (rebuttal/response letter). The revised manuscript an d the response/rebuttal letter are then sent to the same reviewers, if possible. If they have opted out of further participation, other reviewers are chosen by the handling editor. This process is repeated if necessary.

After this review process, if all reviewers recommend accepting the manuscript, usually the manuscript is accepted and sent to production.