Review Process & Publication
Once a manuscript is submitted to IJBSSE via our online Elsevier platform or through attachement to email in word or pdf formant, it is checked for whether the submission guidelines are satisfied (i.e., page limit, language, formatting of tables and figures, font size, line spacing, no identifying notes or marks anywhere in the paper, etc); otherwise the paper is returned to the author(s). For speedy processing, authors are advised to make sure that their paper satisfies the submission guidelines published in this and Ijbsse. If a paper satisfies the basic submission guidelines, it is assigned a reference number within the respective journal database, and turned over to the Editor. At this point, the Editor can desk reject a paper if he believes that the probability of it being accepted is too low and thus it makes no sense to make the author wait for the result of a complete review process. Fitness with IJBSSE’s readership and editorial policy and novel contribution to the field are some of the criteria employed. If the Editor is not fully convinced that the paper ought to be desk rejected, an Area Editor (who has expertise on the paper’s subject area) will then be requested to evaluate the manuscript and recommend it to be either desk rejected or to be accepted into the review process. When the review cycle for a paper begins, a review team, composed of one Area Editor and two Reviewers, are assigned by the Editor on the paper. The author will remain anonymous to both the AE and the Reviewers and vice versa. In addition, the identity of the AE will not be revealed to the 2 Reviewers until the paper has been accepted or rejected for publication. The Area Editor primarily recommends a submission and, in case of a revise-and-resubmit, suggests priorities for the author to make the paper publishable. The Reviewers’ primary role is to evaluate submitted papers in more detail, and in case of revise-and-resubmit, make suggestions – if possible - on how the paper can be improved. In line with this task, the reviewer writes an evaluation report which gives the author expert, unbiased, polite and constructive evaluation of the manuscript; evaluates the manuscript for more importantly: conceptual and methodological rigor, readability, clarity of objectives, significance of topic and contribution, potential input (if revised as suggested), novelty of contribution (both conceptual and empirical), length-contribution ratio. The paper, reports and recommendation of the Review Team are then sent to the editor, who will then make a decision to accept or reject based on these and his own careful reading of the manuscript. The final decision will then be communicated to the author.