Information For Reviewers:
These instructions are intended to be used for electronic submission of reviews:
1. BUJICTs policy requires that referees treat the contents of paper under review as privileged information not to be disclosed to others before publication. It is expected that no one with access to a paper under review will make any inappropriate use of the special knowledge, which that access providers.
2. Please respect the deadline. As an author, you undoubtedly appreciate the importance of minimizing delays. The paper selection procedure for the BUJICT involves a tentative publication recommendation (TPR) which is prepared by the Associate Editor on the basis of paper reviews. The final decision on publication, sustaining or modifying the TPR is taken by the Editor-in-Chief / Editorial Board of the Journal. If you do not have the time to personally review a paper, please see if one of your qualified associates or students can review the paper, or else inform the Associate Editor immediately and destroy / delete your copy of the paper. In the latter case, suggestions of names of alternative reviewers are appreciated.
3. Please prepare your comments to the authors. Do not identify yourself or your organization within the review text.
The following points are suggested for your comments:
- What is the contribution of the paper?
- Does the author explain the significance of this paper?
- Is the paper clearly written and well organized?
- Does the introduction state the purpose of the paper?
- Are the references relevant and complete? Supply missing references if any.
- If the paper is not technically sound, why not?
- If the paper is too long, how can it be shortened?
- Inform if English language of the paper is poor.
4. Please supply any information that you think will be useful to the authors for doing revision and enhancing the appeal of the paper, and/or will convince him/her of the mistakes in the paper if any. The reviewers recommendation for acceptance or rejection should not be included in the comments to the author. It is very important that the reviewer includes at least a few sentences for justifying his/her recommendation.
5. In your critical comments to author, please be specific. If you find that the results are already known, please give references to the earlier papers which contain these or similar results. If you say that the reasoning is incorrect or vague, please indicate specifically where and why. If you suggest that the paper be rewritten, give specific suggestions as to which parts of the paper should be deleted, enhanced or modified, and please indicate how.
6. Sometimes the papers are passed on to graduate students for review. It is important that the quality and professionalism of the review be maintained. If you pass the paper on to a student to review, please check the review personally and send it to us yourself.