Peer Review Policy

Author anonymity prevents any reviewer bias based on, for example, an author’s country of origin or previous controversial work.   Articles written by ‘prestigious’ or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than on the author’s reputation.

All manuscripts are checked for plagiarism, replication, and duplicate publication. Such cases are subject to sanctions after evaluation in accordance with the guidelines available at the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

As a CrossRef member, JCRBEF uses Similarity Check tool that CrossRef provides for the members. Indeed, it is a multi-publisher initiative to screen published and submitted content for originality. The engine of this powerful tool is iThenticate software which check all the submissions with a broad published works.

For further information about Similarity check tool, you can visit Crossref's Similarity Check & Researchers page. 

Policies on Conflict of Interest, Human  rights, and Informed Consent

As, JCRBEF is scheduled to be a member of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), the entire publication process from submission, review, to publication, comply with the guidelines of the COPE.
Authors are required to state clearly the conflict of interest in the form of “None declared” or announcing any interests (Financial or nom-financial) of co-authors.

An important note:
In the case that authors are the developers or evaluators of Health intervention, it should be clearly stated. 

If human subjects or animals were involved, a section on Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval (or exemption) must be provided in the methods. For research coming from industry (without academic partners) it is advisable to have an independent ethics board from within the company discussing, approving and guiding the work.
Consistent with best practices in research, informed consent and the ability of participants to opt out should usually be provided. However, for certain types of research, informed consent cannot be obtained (e.g. analyses of Twitter postings, A/B testing of websites etc). In these cases, the investigator should comment on the criteria proposed by Eysenbach & Till (2001) and obtain IRB approval, which is often particularly important for research with mental health e-communities. 

References

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2015, November). Flowcharts on how to handle common ethical problems. Retrieved from
https://publicationethics.org/files/cope-publication-ethics-flowcharts-full-set.pdf

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, March). Flowcharts on how to handle common ethical problems. Retrieved from
http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf

Eysenbach G and Till JE (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. The BMJ, 323: 1103-1105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103