Review Rules
1. The articles in this journal are peer-reviewed according to the BenchCouncil Journal review rules. Before sending the paper to a specific AE for further handling, the EIC team, two EIC, three associate EIC, and one assistant EIC will guarantee each article reaching the minimum publication standards. One member of the EIC team without conflict of interest (COI) is responsible for checking COI, while the other EIC and AE who do not know the authors' identities made a final decision.
2. Each published article was reviewed by a minimum of three independent reviewers using a double-blind peer-review process. The authors' identities are unknown to the authors, and the reviewers also do not know the authors' identities.
3. Articles will be screened for plagiarism before acceptance.
4. When the reviewers' pointing out closeness to prior work that informs the reviewer’s decision to lower the novelty and contribution of a paper, they should provide a full citation to that previous work.
5. In the following cases, this comparison should not inform a lower score by the reviewer. The reviewers ask authors to draw a comparison with concurrent work published or appeared online after the paper submission deadline or with preliminary work, e.g., a poster or abstract that is not archival.
6. Provide useful and constructive feedback to the authors. Be respectful, professional, and positive in your reviews and provide suggestions for the authors to improve their work.
7. Reviewers must contact the AE or EIC if they feel there is an ethical violation of any sort (e.g., authors seeking support for a paper, authors seeking to identify who the reviewers are).
8. Do not actively look for author identities. Reviewers should judge a paper solely on its merits.
9. Reviewers should review the current submission. If you have reviewed a previous submission, make sure your review is based on the current submission.
10. Reviewers must not share the papers with students/colleagues.
11. Reviewers must compose the reviews themselves and provide unbiased reviews.
12. Do not solicit external reviews without consulting the EIC. If you regularly involve your students in the review process as part of their Ph.D. training, contact the EIC. You are still responsible for the reviews.
13. Do not discuss the content of a submitted paper/review with anyone from now until paper publication in any venue.
14. Do not reveal the name of paper authors if reviewers happen to be aware of the author's identity. (Author names of accepted papers will be revealed after being accepted; The editorial board will never reveal author names of rejected papers.)
15. Do not disclose a paper's outcome until the editorial board notifies its acceptance or rejection to its authors.
16. Do not download or acquire material from the review site you do not need access to.
17. Do not disclose the reviews' content, including the reviewers' identities or discussions about a paper.