JBR uses Single-Blind Peer Review as the standard process:

• Reviewers know author identities but authors do not know reviewer identities
• Enables reviewers to assess author credentials, expertise, and prior publications
• Allows contextual evaluation of research within author's body of work
• Facilitates detection of conflicts of interest and ensures appropriate expertise matching
• Most commonly used model in big data, computer science, and AI journals

Double-Blind Review is available upon author request to ensure completely impartial evaluation:

• Both author and reviewer identities remain anonymous throughout review
• Authors must remove identifying information from manuscript (acknowledgments, self-citations revealing identity)
• Reduces potential bias based on author reputation, institution, or geography
• Particularly valuable for early-career researchers or controversial topics

To request double-blind review, indicate this preference during manuscript submission or email [email protected] before editor assignment.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

• Originality: Novel contribution to big data knowledge
• Significance: Importance to field, potential impact
• Methodology: Rigor, appropriateness, reproducibility
• Results: Validity, statistical soundness, interpretation quality
• Clarity: Logical organization, clear writing, effective figures
• References: Adequate citation of relevant prior work
• Ethics: Compliance with research ethics and data transparency standards

To be listed as an author on a JBR manuscript, individuals must meet all of the following criteria:

1. Substantial contributions to conception and design, data acquisition, or data analysis and interpretation
2. Drafting or critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content
3. Final approval of the version to be published
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work and ensuring accuracy/integrity

The following contributions alone do not justify authorship:

• Solely providing funding acquisition or administrative support
• General supervision of research group without direct involvement
• Providing data or materials without contributing to analysis or interpretation
• Technical assistance (e.g., data collection only, without design input)

These contributors should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section rather than listed as authors.

Author order should reflect relative contributions. The corresponding author serves as the primary contact and is responsible for:

• Ensuring all co-authors meet authorship criteria and approve submission
• Communicating with editors and reviewers throughout publication
• Coordinating revisions and obtaining co-author approvals
• Managing post-publication correspondence and corrections
• Ensuring transparency in reporting and ethical compliance

All submissions undergo automated plagiarism screening using professional software (iThenticate, Turnitin). Manuscripts with similarity scores exceeding acceptable thresholds are flagged for editorial review. Forms of plagiarism include:

• Direct plagiarism: Copying text from other sources without quotation or attribution
• Self-plagiarism: Reusing substantial portions of your own previously published work
• Mosaic plagiarism: Paraphrasing others' work without proper citation
• Idea plagiarism: Presenting others' concepts or methodologies as your own
• Duplicate publication: Submitting substantially similar work to multiple journals

Some text overlap is acceptable and expected:

• Methods sections: Standard descriptions of established techniques
• Properly quoted text: Brief quotations with quotation marks and citations
• Common phrases: Standard academic expressions and terminology
• Mathematical formulas: Well-known equations (with citations)
• Your own preprints: Overlap with your arXiv/bioRxiv preprints (must be disclosed)

Authors must disclose any financial, professional, or personal relationships that could potentially bias their research:

• Financial: Employment, consultancy, stock ownership, grants, patents, royalties
• Professional: Competing research interests, advisory board membership
• Personal: Family or close personal relationships with stakeholders
• Institutional: University or company interests in research outcomes

If no conflicts exist, state explicitly: "The authors declare no conflicts of interest."

Reviewers and editors must decline assignments when conflicts exist:

• Recent collaboration with authors (past 3 years)
• Current institutional affiliation with authors
• Financial relationships or competing research
• Personal relationships with authors
• Strong views on research topic preventing impartial assessment

If authors discover minor errors after publication (typos, incorrect affiliation, small data errors not affecting conclusions):

• Contact editorial office at [email protected] immediately
• Provide detailed description of error and correct information
• Editors evaluate whether correction notice is warranted
• If approved, formal erratum is published and linked to original article
• Original article remains online with notice linking to correction

Retraction occurs for major errors or ethical violations:

• Significant data errors invalidating conclusions
• Evidence of fabrication or falsification
• Confirmed plagiarism or duplicate publication
• Unethical research conduct
• Unreliable findings that cannot be reproduced

Retracted articles remain online with prominent retraction notice explaining reasons. Retractions are reported to indexing services and follow COPE retraction guidelines.