BDJ Fact: Breakthrough Development Journal in Financial & Accounting adheres to a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and scholarly merit of all submitted manuscripts. The process is designed to provide impartial, constructive feedback to authors and uphold the highest standards of academic publishing. The following outlines the steps involved in our peer review process:

1. Initial Submission and Screening

• Upon submission, the manuscript is first reviewed by the editorial team to assess its compliance with the journal's Focus & Scope and formatting guidelines.
• The editor will also check for plagiarism using specialized tools. If plagiarism or substantial overlap with previous works is detected, the manuscript will be rejected.
• If the manuscript passes initial screening, it is sent for peer review.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

• Manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of study. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and knowledge of the subject matter.
• Both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the review process, ensuring a double-blind evaluation.
• Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on several criteria, including originality, significance, methodology, analysis, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s focus areas.

3. Review Process

• Reviewers assess the manuscript critically and provide constructive feedback. Their main tasks include:
  • Assessing the quality of the research: Is the study scientifically sound and methodologically robust?
  • Evaluating the significance: Does the manuscript contribute new knowledge or insights to the field?
  • Reviewing the structure and clarity: Is the manuscript well-organized, clearly written, and easy to follow?
  • Checking references and citations: Are the references up-to-date and properly cited?
  • Ethical considerations: Are there any ethical issues, such as concerns about data integrity or conflict of interest?
• Reviewers are asked to submit their feedback and recommendations within a reasonable timeframe (typically 2-4 weeks).

4. Editorial Decision

• Based on the reviewers' feedback, the editor makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted without further revisions.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small changes or clarifications before it can be accepted for publication.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant revisions. Authors are asked to address the reviewers' comments and resubmit the revised manuscript for a second round of review.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

• Authors will be notified of the decision, along with the reviewers' comments and any necessary instructions for revisions (if applicable).

5. Revision and Resubmission

• If revisions are requested, authors must carefully address all the reviewers' comments and provide a point-by-point response to explain how each comment has been addressed in the revised manuscript.
• Revised manuscripts will undergo a second round of peer review to assess whether the revisions were adequate and whether the manuscript now meets the journal’s standards.

6. Final Decision and Publication

• After successful revision and final approval, the manuscript is accepted for publication.
• The editorial team will perform a final review of the manuscript to ensure it is correctly formatted, free of typographical errors, and adheres to the journal's style guidelines.
• Upon final approval, the manuscript is scheduled for publication in the next available issue.

7. Transparency and Accountability

• The journal is committed to ensuring transparency throughout the peer review process. The identities of the reviewers remain anonymous, and their feedback is shared with the authors to improve the quality of the manuscript.
• Any conflicts of interest involving reviewers or editors must be disclosed, and appropriate measures will be taken to address them.

8. Appeal Process

• If authors disagree with the decision made by the reviewers or editors, they have the option to appeal the decision by providing additional justifications or clarifications.
• Appeals will be reviewed by the editorial board, and a final decision will be made based on the merits of the case.

 

This structured peer review process helps ensure that BDJ Fact maintains a high standard of academic integrity and quality. We value the contributions of our reviewers and appreciate their role in supporting the advancement of knowledge in the fields of finance and accounting.