We are committed to prompt evaluation and publication of fully accepted papers in Journal of BIg Data and Computing Visions (BDCV). To maintain a high-quality publication, all submissions undergo a rigorous review process. Characteristics of the peer review process are as follows:
- Simultaneous submissions of the same manuscript to different journals will not be tolerated.
- Manuscripts with contents outside the scope will not be considered for review.
- Papers will be refereed by at least 2 experts as suggested by the editorial board.
- In addition, Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. Authors will be informed when Editors decide further review is required.
- All publication decisions are made by the journal's Editors-in-Chief on the basis of the referees' reports. Authors of papers that are not accepted are notified promptly.
- All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. We expect our Board of Reviewing Editors and reviewers to treat manuscripts as confidential material as well.
- Editors and reviewers involved in the review process should disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, and remove oneself from cases in which such conflicts preclude an objective evaluation. Privileged information or ideas that are obtained through peer review must not be used for competitive gain.
- Our peer-review process is confidential and identities of reviewers cannot be revealed.
What is Peer Review...?
Peer review is a process of self-regulation by an expert or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to conserve standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia, peer review is often employed to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. In case of blind peer review, the identity of the authors would not be revealed to reviewer/referee till the paper is published in the journal.
Description of Peer Review Process
Peer review is the systematic critical evaluation of manuscripts submitted to journals by specialists who are generally not part of the editorial staff. Because unbiased, independent, critical evaluation is a fundamental part of all academic research, including scientific research, peer review is a significant extension of the scientific process. Peer review helps editors determine which manuscripts to publish and the aim is the modification of quality, accuracy, transparency, and completeness of published manuscripts. Peer-review does not guarantee manuscript quality and does not reliably detect scientific misconduct. Peer reviewers advise editors on how a manuscript might be improved and on its priority for publication in that journal. Editors decide whether and under which conditions manuscripts are accepted for publication, assisted by reviewers’ advice. Editors of peer-reviewed journals need not send all submitted manuscripts out for review. Manuscripts that seem unlikely to be published in that journal may be returned to authors without external review, to allow authors to submit the manuscript to another journal without delay and to make efficient use of reviewers’ and editors’ time. Editors should also periodically publish statistics describing their journal’s review process, such as the number of manuscripts submitted, acceptance rate, and average time from manuscript submission to rejection letter to authors and, for accepted manuscripts, time to publication. Journal of Big Data and Computing Visions (BDCV) accepts submission via its online submission system. The submitted manuscript must be accompanied with some forms in which the authors should state why the manuscript should be considered, evaluate on any issues relating to the BDCVeditorial policies and declare if they have any competing interests. The authors of received manuscripts are also asked to submit a copyright declaration of competing interests as part of their manuscript. All papers of the journal are peer-reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Acceptance is granted when both reviewers’ recommendations are positive. Journal issues will be made available online.
Initial review: The objective of the journal is to speed up the decision process without compromising on quality. The journal has a double-blind peer review and the peer reviewers may be members of the editorial board or external reviewers. The selection of peer reviewers depends on their availability and the subject of the manuscript. One-step before the reviewing process, the journal editors use the PLAGIARISM software, Ithenticate (http://www.ithenticate.com/). The text similarity score below 20% is acceptable by the journal. Also, submissions that are out of scope for the Journal or are of an unacceptably low standard may be rejected without review. This reviewing period (announcing to the author or starting the reviewing process) is at most 7 days and reviewing process is done by at least 2 reviewers of the journal. It is noteworthy the specified time to review process is approximately 1 to 3 months at most.
Potentially suitable manuscripts will generally be reviewed by at least two experts in the field with the aim of reaching a first decision as soon as possible. Specialist statistical advisers are used when necessary to ensure that the statistical reasoning in manuscripts is sound. Reviewers are asked to declare their competing interests, if any.
Peer review: BDCV follows Double-Blind Peer Review process. Papers that pass the initial review are assigned to a subject Editor, who selects several referees based on their expertise in that particular field. At least two referees under a double-blind peer-review process review each paper where both the referees and the authors are kept anonymous. Referees are asked to evaluate the paper based on their originality, novelty, clarity, completeness, significance, soundness of methodology and research contribution and relevance to design practices. Based on the Review Remarks, the papers may be placed in any one of the categories:
- Article Accepted
- Accepted with Minor Revision
- Accepted with Major Revision
- Clear Rejected
To facilitate timely publication, referees are asked to complete their reviews within 4-6 weeks. After collecting the referees' reports, the subject Editor makes a recommendation on the acceptability of the paper to the Editor-in-Chief.
Recommendation: Based on the review board member comments and the subject Editor's recommendation, the Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision on the acceptability of the paper and communicates to the authors the decision, along with referees' reports. The final decision can be "Accept Submission", "Revisions Required", "Resubmit for Review", "Decline Submission." A revised paper should be re-submitted within 15-30 days of the decision. It will usually be returned to the original referees for evaluation.
If recommended by the Review Board Member the papers may undergo multiple cycles of review, before finally being accepted. The corresponding authors of qualifying submissions shall be intimated accordingly. Final acceptance of a paper is based on the review remarks by the referees and decision of the editorial board. After this detailed review process, if a paper is finally accepted, the decision regarding the issue in which the paper will be published will be taken by the Editorial Board; and the author will be intimated accordingly.
The detailed Journal peer review process is based on the following Flow Diagram:
Below, the reviewing procedure is depicted: