Peer-Reviewer Guidelines

Peer-Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are requested to produce a report on the paper (which will be sent in an anonymised form to the authors) and also make a recommendation regarding acceptance. Each manuscript is sent to at least three experts in the field for evaluation.


  1. Accepted as it is
  2. Accepted, needs minor revision: recommended when the paper reports good research but there are a few minor issues that require expansion or clarification.
  3. Accepted, needs condense:  recommended when the manuscript reports good research but is lengthy.
  4. Accepted, needs major revision: recommended either when the methods and/or results need clarification to confirm that the study was well executed, or when there are multiple small comments to be addressed.
  5. Accepted as short communication: small studies reporting pilot data or novel ideas may be suitable for consideration as short communications.
  6. Rejected: used for a study that is extremely small with inconsistent methods, adds no new knowledge and/or is likely to be of little interest to the IJBCS readership.

PS : See Referee’s Evaluation Sheet for more details.

Report structure

Reviewers are requested to give a general assessment of the paper, with a brief summary of their recommendation about publication, and identify major points (either positive or negative) and/or strengths and weaknesses. This should be followed by detailed constructive comments under specific headings of the paper. Authors find it helpful when reviewers suggest specific ways in which the paper should be revised.


Many of our papers come from authors for whom English is a second language and reviewers should try not to let language be a barrier to their assessment of the paper. Reviewers are not expected to correct the spelling and grammar of the manuscript; if accepted, the paper will be professionally copyedited.

You are here: Home Reviewer Guidelines