Manuscript Assessment

• Conduct initial screening of assigned manuscripts for scope alignment, quality, and completeness
• Assess novelty, significance, and potential contribution to big data research
• Identify manuscripts suitable for peer review vs. those requiring desk rejection
• Evaluate technical soundness and methodological rigor at preliminary stage
• Make desk decisions within 5-7 days of assignment when possible

Reviewer Selection and Management

• Identify and invite at least 2-3 qualified reviewers with relevant expertise
• Screen for conflicts of interest (recent collaboration, institutional affiliation, personal relationships)
• Consider geographic diversity and avoid bias toward specific research groups
• Send reminder emails to reviewers if reviews are delayed beyond 21 days
• Maintain respectful, professional communication with all reviewers
• Recognize reviewer contributions and provide feedback on review quality

Editorial Decision-Making

• Synthesize reviewer recommendations and make informed editorial decisions
• Decide among: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject
• Provide clear, constructive decision letters explaining rationale
• Highlight key strengths and weaknesses identified during review
• Give specific guidance for revisions when applicable
• Make decisions within 5-7 days of receiving final reviewer reports
• Ensure fairness and consistency in applying quality standards

Revision Assessment

• Review revised manuscripts and author response letters carefully
• Verify that authors adequately addressed reviewer comments
• Decide whether revisions are sufficient or additional changes needed
• Send to original reviewers for re-review if major changes made
• Make final accept/reject decision on revised submissions promptly

Confidentiality

Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript content, reviewer identities (in single-blind review), and editorial communications. Do not discuss manuscripts with anyone outside the editorial process. Never use unpublished ideas or data from manuscripts for your own research. Confidentiality extends indefinitely, even after manuscripts are published or rejected.

Conflicts of Interest

Decline to handle manuscripts when conflicts exist:

• Recent collaboration with authors (within past 3 years)
• Current or past institutional affiliation (same university/department)
• Personal relationships with authors (family, close friends)
• Financial interests in research outcomes
• Competing research that could bias judgment
• Strong personal views preventing objective evaluation

If unsure, disclose potential conflict to Editor-in-Chief for guidance.

Fairness and Objectivity

Evaluate all manuscripts objectively based on scientific merit alone, without regard to author ethnicity, gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, religious belief, or political views. Avoid favoritism toward certain research paradigms, methodologies, or theoretical frameworks. Give equal consideration to manuscripts from prestigious institutions and lesser-known universities.

Timeliness

Respect authors' time by making decisions promptly. Aim for: desk decisions within 5-7 days, reviewer invitations within 3 days of accepting assignment, decision letters within 5-7 days of receiving final reviews. If unavailable due to travel, sabbatical, or other commitments, notify the editorial office promptly so manuscripts can be reassigned.

Accept

Manuscript meets JBR's quality standards with minor or no required changes. Both reviewers recommend acceptance or one accepts with minor revisions. Research is original, methodology sound, results valid, and conclusions supported by data. Manuscript ready for publication pending APC payment and final author approval of copyediting.

Minor Revisions

Manuscript has potential but requires limited revisions addressable without major additional work. Typical issues: clarification needed in methods, additional references required, minor data presentation improvements, text clarity enhancements. Authors can typically address within 2-4 weeks. Re-review by editors usually sufficient (not sent back to original reviewers).

Major Revisions

Manuscript addresses important topic but has significant weaknesses requiring substantial revision. Typical issues: additional experiments/analyses needed, insufficient validation, incomplete methodology description, major rewriting required. Authors need several months for revisions. Revised manuscript returned to original reviewers for re-evaluation. No guarantee of acceptance after revision—depends on adequacy of improvements.

Reject

Manuscript does not meet JBR's standards or scope. Typical reasons: outside journal scope, insufficient novelty, fatal methodological flaws, results don't support conclusions, poor writing preventing assessment, ethical concerns, or plagiarism. Provide constructive feedback explaining rejection to help authors improve future submissions. Rejected manuscripts cannot be resubmitted unless substantial new work addresses identified weaknesses.