Peer Review Process

Editorial Quality Assurance

Peer Review Process

Blockchain, Artificial Intelligence, and Future Research (BAFR) applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to support independent scholarly evaluation, research integrity, and consistent editorial decision-making.

 
Review Model
Double-Blind
 
Independent Reviewers
Minimum Two
 
Final Decision
Academic Editor

Review Principles

Manuscripts submitted to BAFR are evaluated on the basis of scholarly relevance, originality, methodological rigor, clarity, ethical compliance, contribution to knowledge, and alignment with the journal's aims and scope.

Peer review provides expert scholarly advice to editors and authors. Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions, but the final decision regarding publication remains the responsibility of the designated editor.

Peer Review Workflow

1
Submission and Administrative Check
The editorial office checks the submission for completeness, journal formatting requirements, required declarations, manuscript files, authorship information, and basic compliance with journal policies.
2
Editorial Screening
An editor conducts an initial scholarly assessment to determine whether the manuscript is relevant to BAFR's aims and scope and demonstrates sufficient originality, scientific quality, methodological adequacy, ethical compliance, and potential contribution to proceed to external review.
3
Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts proceeding to peer review are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject matter and methodology of the manuscript. Reviewer selection also considers independence, absence of disqualifying competing interests, and ability to provide a timely and objective assessment.
4
Double-Blind Peer Review
BAFR applies a double-blind review model. The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Authors are therefore expected to prepare the review version of their manuscript without information that unnecessarily reveals their identities.
5
Editorial Decision
After considering reviewer reports, the editor determines the appropriate editorial outcome. A manuscript may be accepted, returned for minor revision, returned for major revision, or rejected.
6
Revision and Author Response
When revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response addressing reviewer and editor comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.
7
Final Decision and Production
The designated editor makes the final editorial decision. Manuscripts accepted for publication proceed to copyediting, production, author proofing, and publication according to BAFR's continuous publication model.

Reviewer Assessment

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts critically and constructively, considering relevant aspects such as:

Originality Scientific Relevance Theoretical Foundation Methodological Rigor Data & Analysis Results & Interpretation Research Transparency Ethical Compliance Scholarly Contribution Clarity of Presentation

Reviewer Selection and Independence

Reviewers are selected primarily on the basis of demonstrated expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject matter and research methods. Academic seniority, citation counts, or h-index values are not treated as substitutes for relevant expertise or independence.

Editors seek to avoid reviewers whose professional, financial, personal, institutional, collaborative, or other relationships could reasonably compromise impartial evaluation.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers or identify individuals they prefer not to review their manuscript. Such requests are considered by the editor but are not binding. The journal retains full discretion over reviewer selection.

Reviewer Integrity

Competing Interests

Invited reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interest that could affect their ability to provide an impartial assessment. Reviewers should decline the invitation when they cannot evaluate a manuscript objectively and independently.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, discuss, reproduce, or use unpublished manuscript content without authorization from the journal.

Information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal, academic, financial, competitive, or other advantage.

Confidential Peer Review

Use of Generative AI by Reviewers

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the content, accuracy, fairness, and integrity of their review.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, figures, tables, datasets, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, or editorial communications to external generative-AI or AI-assisted systems where confidentiality, intellectual property, privacy, or data control cannot be assured.

Ethical Concerns Identified During Review

If reviewers identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data, inappropriate image manipulation, unethical research, undisclosed competing interests, citation manipulation, or other potential misconduct, they should report the concern confidentially to the editor rather than independently investigating or contacting the authors.

Editorial Decisions

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The editor evaluates the reviewers' arguments, the manuscript, author responses, journal policies, and relevant ethical considerations before making an editorial decision.

Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by an editor, editorial-board member, reviewer, publisher representative, or other person closely associated with BAFR are subject to the same scholarly standards as other submissions. The individual concerned must not participate in reviewer selection or the editorial decision for their own manuscript. Editorial responsibility should be assigned to an independent editor without a disqualifying competing interest.

Peer Review Principle

Independent, Constructive, and Evidence-Based Review

BAFR regards peer review as a scholarly quality-assurance process. Reviewers and editors are expected to evaluate manuscripts fairly, confidentially, independently, and on the basis of evidence and academic merit.