Reviewer Guidelines

BMCS reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of the journal. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations that help authors improve their work.

1. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

  • Assess expertise: Accept only if the manuscript matches your expertise.
  • Check availability: Accept only if you can complete the review within the requested timeframe.
  • Declare conflicts of interest: Decline if any conflict could affect impartiality.

2. Confidentiality

The manuscript and associated materials are confidential. Do not share, discuss, or distribute the manuscript or its content with others without explicit permission from the editorial office.

3. Objectivity and Professional Conduct

Reviews should be fair, unbiased, and focused on scholarly merit. Comments must be respectful and free from personal criticism. Any discriminatory or inappropriate language is not acceptable.

4. What to Evaluate

  • Originality: Is the contribution novel and significant?
  • Correctness: Are proofs, statements, and computations mathematically correct?
  • Methods: Are methods sound and appropriate?
  • Clarity: Is the paper well organized and clearly written?
  • References: Are citations appropriate and sufficient?
  • Scope: Does the manuscript fit BMCS aims and scope?

5. Structure of the Review Report

  • Summary: Briefly summarize the main contribution in your own words.
  • Major comments: Identify substantial issues affecting correctness, novelty, or presentation.
  • Minor comments: List smaller issues (typos, clarity, formatting).
  • Recommendation: Provide one of the standard recommendations (accept / minor / major / reject).

6. Ethical Issues and Integrity Flags

If you suspect plagiarism, redundant publication, manipulated results, citation manipulation, or other ethical concerns, inform the editor confidentially with as much detail as possible. Do not contact the authors directly.

7. Double-Blind Review

BMCS uses double-blind peer review. Reviewers should not attempt to discover author identities. If you believe you can identify the authors and this creates a conflict, notify the editor and consider declining the review.

8. Use of AI Tools

If you use any tools to assist your review (e.g., for language checking), you remain responsible for the content of your report. Do not upload manuscripts or confidential content to any third-party service that could compromise confidentiality.