Peer Review Process

  1. The article is reviewed by the editor in chief and editors for suitability with the focus and scope of BMIT Journal
  2. After the editors approve the article, it is reviewed by reviewers that have been assigned by the editors
  3. If the reviewers have some revisions to the article, it is returned to the editors
  4. The editor will return the article to the author
  5. The author revises accordingly and re-submit the article 
  6. The author awaits for further decisions.

Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that have been submitted will be checked in advance by the editor. The editor will determine whether the manuscript complies with the Journal's submission guidelines or not. If the submitted manuscript is in accordance with the journal's writing style, the journal will be reviewed by colleagues. The journal implements a double-blind peer-review process involving expert reviewers in relevant areas of legal studies. Each submitted paper will be reviewed by at least two peer-reviewers. The final decision on acceptance of the manuscript is fully decided by the editor in accordance with the opinions of the reviewers.

Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are not allowed. This journal encourages authors to ensure their manuscripts are original or plagiarism-free. To detect journal plagiarism using a plagiarism tool (turnitin) to screen manuscripts before publication. Overlapping and similar text detection is used there so citations and matched quotes should be used whenever needed.

The editorial board makes decisions based on the comments or suggestions of the reviewers. Assignment reviewers provide an assessment of originality, clarity of presentation, contribution to the field/knowledge. The journal has four kinds of decisions regarding submissions as follows:

  1. Accepted
  2. Accepted with Minor Revisions(please author revise with the specified time)
  3. Accepted with Major Revisions(please author revise with the specified time)
  4. Rejected (in general, rejection for reasons beyond the scope and purpose, major technical description issues, lack of clarity of presentation)