Peer Review Policy
1. Initial Editorial Screening
Each submission undergoes a preliminary editorial assessment to evaluate scope fit, originality, basic scholarly quality, and compliance with journal policies. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage without external review.
2. Reviewer Assignment
Submissions passing screening are assigned to a handling editor and typically sent to at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.
3. Review Criteria
- Originality and significance of the contribution
- Mathematical rigor and correctness
- Soundness of methods (including computational approaches)
- Clarity of exposition and organization
- Relevance to the aims and scope of BMCS
4. Review Outcomes
Possible decisions include:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
5. Revisions
When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response to reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers when appropriate.
6. Confidentiality and Ethics
Manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers and editors must not share manuscript content or use it for personal research prior to publication. Any attempt to compromise review integrity is treated as misconduct.
All manuscripts submitted to BMCS are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not disclose any information regarding submitted manuscripts to third parties without permission from the editorial office.
Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations objectively and to declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
7. Appeals
Authors who believe that a decision has been made in error may submit a formal appeal to the editorial office. Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, when necessary, by additional members of the editorial board. The decision following the appeal process is considered final.
