Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Each of the submissions judged as suitable for the conference is sent to three experts in the related area for double-blind peer review. All submitted articles will be checked for similarity and plagiarism using Turnitin software. The acceptable level of similarity is 25%. Manuscripts exceeding this level will be requested to revise or may be rejected. The decision of acceptance or rejection of papers is made by the editor-in-chief and associate editors after assessing the reviewers’ comments. All accepted papers must be presented at the ICBR conference and will be published in the conference proceedings.

Guideline for Reviewers

All articles submitted undergo a double-blind peer review process conducted by three expert reviewers to ensure academic and scientific quality. Peer reviewers are expected to adhere to the following guidelines:

1. Expertise

  • Reviewers should evaluate papers within their area of expertise and scope.
  • Any article outside the reviewer’s expertise should be reported to the editor promptly.

2. Promptness

  • Reviews should be completed within two weeks of receiving the manuscript.
  • If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should notify the editor immediately.

3. Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
  • Information regarding the manuscripts should not be discussed with others without the editor’s approval.
  • Reviewers must avoid using any data or information from the manuscripts for personal advantage.

4. Standards of Objectivity

  • Reviews should be conducted objectively, without personal criticism of the author.
  • Comments should be clearly expressed and supported by data or arguments.

5. Competing Interests

  • Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
  • If a conflict of interest arises while reviewing a manuscript, the reviewer should notify the editor.

6. Publication Misconduct

  • Reviewers should inform the editor if they suspect research or publication misconduct.
  • The committee, consisting of the Director-BRU, Editor-in-Chief, and Secretary of BRU, is responsible for investigating such claims.

CMT ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The Microsoft CMT service was used for managing the peer-reviewing process for this conference. This service was provided for free by Microsoft and they bore all expenses, including costs for Azure cloud services as well as for software development and support.