Our editorial approach
At the Bulletin of Computer and Data Sciences (BCDS), the primary criterion for publication is technical soundness. We focus on whether the work is methodologically rigorous, analytically correct, statistically appropriate, and ethically conducted.
We do not attempt to predict the future impact or “novelty level” of a manuscript; instead, we aim to ensure that any paper we accept is a reliable contribution to the computer and data sciences community. Judgments about long-term significance are left to the research community through citation, reuse, and discussion.
The information below explains what happens after you submit your manuscript to BCDS.
Phase 1: Submission and compliance check
Once your manuscript is submitted, our editorial office performs an initial screening to ensure that it meets our basic requirements and policies. This includes, where applicable:
Verification of authorship and author contributions
Declarations of funding and competing interests
Confirmation of appropriate ethical approvals (e.g., for human or animal data, or sensitive datasets)
Basic plagiarism and redundancy checks
Adherence to journal formatting and data availability requirements
This first step is designed to make sure that our academic editors and peer reviewers receive a complete and transparent submission package, enabling a fair and efficient assessment.
Phase 2: Handling Editor assessment
After the initial checks, your manuscript is assigned to a Handling Editor from the BCDS Editorial Board. Handling Editors are active researchers in relevant areas of computer science, data science, and related fields.
The Handling Editor evaluates whether:
The manuscript fits the scope of BCDS
The work is potentially technically sound and of sufficient clarity to warrant external review
The data, code, and methodological description appear adequate in principle for evaluation and replication
If these criteria are met, the Handling Editor initiates external peer review.
Reviewer selection
For most papers, the Handling Editor invites two to three expert reviewers. In choosing reviewers, the editor considers:
Subject-matter expertise and methodological competence
Prior publication and reviewing experience
Potential conflicts of interest
Authors may suggest potential reviewers, and we will consider these suggestions, but we are not obliged to use them. You may also request that specific individuals or laboratories not be invited to review your work (up to three names or groups); we will honour these exclusions wherever feasible.
In some cases, if suitable reviewers are difficult to identify or secure, we may collaborate with trusted external services or networks to help locate qualified reviewers, while maintaining our standards for independence and confidentiality. Reviewers receive clear guidance on our evaluation criteria; they are not identified to the authors unless they explicitly request to sign their reports.
Phase 3: Peer review
During the peer-review stage, reviewers focus on technical quality and validity, rather than perceived impact. In particular, they are asked to comment on:
Correctness and completeness of the methods and experiments
Soundness of the theoretical development or algorithmic analysis
Appropriateness of the statistical and empirical methodology
Consistency between data, code, analyses, and reported conclusions
Reproducibility and transparency (e.g., availability of datasets, code, and parameters, where possible)
Ethical and responsible use of data, including privacy and fairness considerations where relevant
Reviewers provide written reports and a recommendation (e.g., accept, revise, or reject). These reports are sent to the Handling Editor, who integrates the feedback and makes an editorial decision.
Phase 4: Editorial decision
Based on the reviewers’ comments and their own assessment, the Handling Editor may recommend one of the following:
Accept (occasionally with minor editorial adjustments)
Minor revision
Major revision
Reject
We aim to provide an initial decision on your manuscript within roughly 6 weeks of submission, although timelines can vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the work.
If revisions are requested
If your manuscript is invited for revision:
You will receive an email with the decision letter, reviewer comments, and a deadline for submitting the revised version.
You should submit:
A clean revised manuscript, and
A detailed, point-by-point response explaining how you addressed each comment (or why you disagree, with justification).
The Handling Editor may send the revised manuscript back to the original reviewers or consult new reviewers, at their discretion, depending on the extent and nature of the changes.
We generally aim for papers to be accepted after one substantive round of revision, so we encourage authors to address all issues comprehensively in their first revision.
Throughout the process, the BCDS editorial office is available to help with any technical or procedural questions.
Production and publication
Once the Handling Editor has confirmed that all scientific and ethical issues have been resolved, the manuscript is formally accepted for publication.
The paper then enters production, where it is prepared for online publication. As part of this process:
The publisher will generate proofs (formatted versions of your article).
You will be asked to carefully check the proofs for typographical errors and any changes that may affect scientific meaning.
At the proof stage, only essential corrections are normally allowed, such as:
Fixing scientific or factual errors
Correcting author names, affiliations, or acknowledgements
Adjusting the title only when strictly necessary
All corrections must be approved by the production team before final publication.
If your manuscript is rejected
A manuscript may be rejected at the editorial assessment stage or after peer review. Common reasons include:
Technical flaws that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision
Insufficient methodological transparency or missing essential data
Failure to meet the journal’s scope or ethical standards
Reviewer and editor consensus that the work is not technically robust enough for publication in BCDS
Rejection does not preclude submission of new, substantially revised work as a fresh manuscript, but the original rejected manuscript itself is considered closed.
Appeals
If you believe that your manuscript was rejected due to a significant scientific misunderstanding or clear reviewer bias, you may submit an appeal.
Appeals should:
Be concise and focused
Clearly identify the specific factual errors or evidence of bias in the reviews
Where necessary, include a brief, revised version of the manuscript or additional clarifications
Because we must prioritise ongoing submissions, appeals may take several weeks to resolve. Each manuscript can only be appealed once, and appeals are considered only after the completion of peer review (not after editorial-only rejections).
The final decision on appeals rests with the Handling Editor (or, when appropriate, another senior editor). A decision will be overturned only if the editor is convinced that the original judgment was based on substantial error or bias, and that correcting this would plausibly alter the publication decision.
