About the Bulletin of Computer and Data Sciences (BCDS)
The Bulletin of Computer and Data Sciences (BCDS) is an international, online, open-access journal that publishes primary research across the broad spectrum of computer science, data science and related disciplines.
Editorial decisions are taken by our Editorial Board, which is composed of active researchers who oversee peer review and determine which manuscripts are suitable for publication. The Editorial Board works in close collaboration with an in-house editorial office and, where relevant, an advisory panel.
What we look for in a paper
To be accepted in BCDS, a manuscript must be:
Scientifically and technically sound
Methodologically appropriate, with correctly applied techniques
Analytically rigorous, including reasonable experimental design and valid statistical analysis where applicable
We do not ask reviewers to evaluate the perceived prestige, novelty, or “impact” of the work. Questions of influence, visibility, and long-term significance are left to the research community after publication.
BCDS is happy to consider:
Studies with narrow or niche scope
Work at the intersection of multiple fields
Negative results or non-confirmatory findings
Replications that are technically well-justified and carefully executed
How the review process works
After submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial check. Manuscripts that appear potentially sound and within scope are then sent for external peer review.
Once reviewer reports are received, the Handling Editor (a member of the Editorial Board) will choose one of the following outcomes:
Accept (possibly with minor editorial changes)
Minor revision – authors respond to specific, limited concerns
Major revision – authors address substantial issues and may need to provide additional analyses, experiments, or clarifications
Reject
If the authors submit a revised version, the Handling Editor may:
Make a decision directly based on the authors’ response and the revised manuscript, or
Send the revision back to the original reviewers (or, rarely, to additional reviewers) for further feedback.
We therefore ask reviewers, when possible, to remain available for follow-up assessment. However, if it is clear that the authors have not made a serious attempt to engage with the reviewers’ critiques, the Editor may decide not to re-involve reviewers for another round.
Choosing reviewers
Selecting appropriate reviewers is a crucial part of our editorial process. Handling Editors are responsible for inviting referees based on criteria such as:
Subject-matter and methodological expertise
Reviewer recommendations (from the community, authors, or databases)
Prior experience with thoughtful, constructive reviews
All invitations to review are confidential, and the identity of invited reviewers is not disclosed to the authors.
How to write your review
The main role of the review is twofold:
To give the Handling Editor enough information to make a well-reasoned editorial decision, and
To help the authors understand how they might improve their manuscript so that it becomes technically robust and clearly presented.
Reviewers should focus on validity and rigor, not on predicted citation counts, hype, or “trendiness”. In particular:
Methods should be appropriate for the research question and implemented correctly.
Analyses should be transparent and reproducible, and statistical procedures (where applicable) should be sound.
Conclusions should be supported by the data, proofs, or arguments presented.
When preparing your report, please consider questions such as:
Is the work technically sound and logically coherent?
Are the main claims credible, given the evidence provided? If not, what additional analysis or data would be needed?
Are the conclusions fully backed by experiments, simulations, theoretical derivations, or datasets?
Is the statistical analysis appropriate and correctly interpreted, where relevant?
Does the data and code availability align with the practices and expectations of your field (e.g., public repositories, documented pipelines, reproducible scripts)?
Are the findings situated properly in the context of existing literature, with relevant prior work cited and discussed fairly?
If you feel the paper is not acceptable in its current shape, does it nevertheless show enough promise that a substantially revised or future submission would be worth encouraging?
Is the manuscript clearly written, and how might the presentation be improved (organisation, clarity, figures, tables, examples)?
Are there any ethical concerns (e.g., use of sensitive datasets, human participants, animals, security-sensitive content, fairness implications in AI systems)?
On maps and affiliations: BCDS maintains a neutral stance regarding territorial claims and jurisdictional disputes. Authors are responsible for the naming conventions in maps and affiliations. Reviewers should not request changes to these elements unless they are essential for understanding the scientific content or cause genuine confusion.
Use of AI tools by peer reviewers
Peer review relies on human expertise, accountability, and trust. Reviewers are invited because of their knowledge of the topic or methods, and their evaluation forms a key part of the scientific record.
At the same time, generative AI tools still have important limitations: they may hallucinate facts, misinterpret technical arguments, or introduce biased or fabricated content. Manuscripts may also contain confidential or proprietary information that must not be shared beyond the review process.
For these reasons:
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or substantial parts of them into public or unsecured generative AI tools or services.
If you use AI tools in a limited way (for example, to check grammar in parts of your own text), you remain fully responsible for the content of your review.
If any aspect of your evaluation (e.g., summarizing a section, drafting a paragraph of your report) involved the use of an AI tool, please state this transparently in your report (e.g., “I used an AI-assisted writing tool to polish language in parts of this review, but the evaluation and judgements are my own.”).
Confidentiality
Both Editorial Board Members and reviewers must treat all manuscripts—and the entire review process—as strictly confidential:
Do not share the manuscript or its content with anyone outside your immediate review activities.
If you wish to consult a colleague within your research group, please inform the Handling Editor and identify that colleague, and ensure they also treat the manuscript as confidential.
Consulting someone outside your group may be allowed, but only with explicit permission from the Handling Editor, to avoid conflicts of interest or breaches of author exclusions.
Manuscripts under review should never be used for personal advantage, nor shared, cited, or discussed publicly.
Timeliness of reviews
BCDS aims to provide authors with timely decisions and smooth publication. For this reason, we ask reviewers to:
Respond promptly to invitations, indicating whether you can review and within what timeframe.
Once you accept, submit your review ideally within 6weeks, or within the agreed extended timeline if arranged with the Editor.
If you anticipate delays, please inform the Handling Editor and the editorial office, so that authors can be kept updated and alternative arrangements can be made if necessary.
Reviewer anonymity
By default, BCDS operates single-blind peer review: reviewers know the authors’ identities (if disclosed), but author identities are not shared with other reviewers, and reviewers’ identities are not revealed to authors.
We do not disclose reviewer identities unless reviewers explicitly ask to sign their reports.
If you wish to reveal your identity to the authors, please inform the Handling Editor or editorial office so this can be done in a controlled and appropriate way.
We strongly discourage reviewers from contacting authors directly about a manuscript under review.
We also discourage authors from attempting to identify or contact reviewers. The journal will neither confirm nor deny any speculation about reviewer identities.
Handling and editing of reviewer reports
As a rule, BCDS does not rewrite or substantially edit reviewer comments. Reports meant for the authors are transmitted essentially as submitted.
Exceptions are rare and limited to:
Removal of offensive, derogatory, or discriminatory language
Removal of material that breaches confidentiality or discusses other manuscripts or individuals inappropriately
We ask reviewers to be frank but professional. Robust criticism of methods, reasoning, or presentation is often necessary and not considered unfair simply because it is strongly worded. At the same time, we ask you to avoid personal remarks or needlessly harsh language.
Competing interests and objectivity
We try to respect reasonable author requests to exclude specific Editors or reviewers. In addition, Handling Editors aim to avoid inviting reviewers who:
Have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors
Have seen earlier drafts or advised on the manuscript in detail
Are in direct competition to publish similar findings
Have a known personal or professional conflict with the authors
Have a strong financial or other stake in the outcome of the study
However, Editors cannot know every potential conflict. We therefore ask reviewers to:
Declare any circumstances that might affect impartiality (e.g., previous collaboration, strong intellectual rivalry, financial ties), and
Decline the review if you feel you cannot provide a balanced and objective assessment.
Not all links to authors automatically invalidate a review; often the people most able to evaluate a paper are indeed close to the topic. Editors will weigh any disclosed competing interests when interpreting the reports.
If you have previously reviewed the same manuscript (or an earlier version) for another journal, this does not disqualify you from reviewing it for BCDS. Your existing familiarity with the work can be valuable, and you are welcome to reuse or adapt relevant parts of your prior assessment, updating it as appropriate.
Submitting your review online
All reviews for BCDS must be submitted through our online manuscript management system:
Use the personalized link in your invitation email to access the manuscript and review form.
Enter your confidential comments to the Editor and your comments to the authors as instructed in the system.
Upload any annotated files (e.g., PDFs with tracked comments) only through the system—not by direct email to the authors.
If you encounter any technical problems, please contact the editorial office using the details provided in your invitation.
