BOHR International Journal of Smart Computing and Information Technology

BOHR Publishing strives hard toward the spread of scientific knowledge, and the credibility of the published research paper completely depends upon effective peer reviewing process. Reviewing of a manuscript is an important part in the process of publication. Reviewers are asked to make an evaluation and provide recommendations to ensure the scientific quality of the manuscript is on par with our standards. Reviewers are not expected to rewrite a paper. BOHR reviewers are requested to provide authentic, review comments, for the respective manuscript. A reviewer has to review the articles received from the editorial office or the editor within the specifically mentioned timeline.

Guidelines

• Reviewers should follow the review guidelines and decide on the articles with special reference to originality and novelty,
• Reviewers should understand that the peer review process is confidential and the information should not be used for personal advantage.
• Reviewers should clearly understand that the review process should be unbiased and the authors deserve full credit for their work. There shall be no personal criticism of the author.
• Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
• Reviewers should submit a comprehensive and substantial peer review report in a timely manner. If there is any delay, it should be communicated to the editor.
• Reviewers should also bring to the editorial committee's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the article under consideration and any other published work of which they have personal knowledge.
• Reviewers should have a look at the assigned manuscript and arrive at a decision regarding whether the paper fits within the stated scope of the journal or not. They should evaluate the manuscript within the provided timeline in order to facilitate timely completion of the review process.
• Confidential remarks to be done and the reviewer can advise the editor for acceptance, rejection, or modification. Their comments and reviews must never be influenced by race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, language, origin, gender, or any political agencies.