Peer Review Process

General Overview

Every manuscript submitted to BETA-BAREKENG : Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science undergoes a peer review process consisting of two main stages: (1) pre-review by the editorial team and (2) external peer review by reviewers.

This process is designed to ensure that only manuscripts that meet the journal’s technical, ethical, and scientific standards proceed to publication.

Back to top

Stage 1: Pre-Review by Editor

At the submission stage, each manuscript is first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, or assigned editor through a pre-review process.

The purpose of this stage is to examine whether the manuscript meets the journal’s basic requirements, including:

• compliance with the journal template and writing format;
• relevance of the article to the aims and scope of the journal;
• basic clarity of presentation and organization;
• initial plagiarism/similarity screening;
• ethical suitability for further processing.

As part of this stage, the manuscript is checked for initial similarity. Manuscripts are expected to have a similarity level of less than 25% in the initial screening, subject to editorial interpretation and excluding legitimate overlap such as references, standard phrases, and properly cited materials where applicable.

Manuscripts that do not meet these minimum requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected before being sent for external review.

Back to top

Stage 2: External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the pre-review stage are forwarded to the external peer review stage.

At this stage, the manuscript is reviewed by at least two (2) external reviewers who possess expertise relevant to the manuscript’s field of study.

The reviewers are asked to evaluate the substance and scientific content of the manuscript, including the originality of the contribution, the soundness of the methods, the correctness of the analysis, the adequacy of references, and the overall contribution to mathematics, statistics, computer science, or related interdisciplinary fields.

If needed, the editor may invite an additional reviewer when the reports differ substantially or when further expert assessment is necessary.

Back to top

Double-Blind Review System

BETA-BAREKENG : Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science adopts a double-blind peer review system.

In this system, the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors. This approach is intended to support objectivity, fairness, and impartiality in the evaluation process.

Authors are therefore expected to prepare manuscripts in an anonymized form for review purposes.

Back to top

Review Criteria

External reviewers are generally asked to assess the manuscript based on the following aspects:

• novelty and originality of the topic or findings;
• relevance to the scope of the journal;
• scientific rigor and methodological soundness;
• clarity of arguments, results, and conclusions;
• adequacy and relevance of references;
• quality of presentation, language, and organization;
• overall contribution to the relevant field of science.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and professional comments that help both the editors and the authors improve the manuscript.

Back to top

Editorial Decision

The final decision on a manuscript is made by the Editor or Editorial Board after considering the reviewer reports and the journal’s editorial standards.

The editorial decision may take one of the following forms:

• Accept;
• Accept with Minor Revisions;
• Accept with Major Revisions;
• Resubmit for Review;
• Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final publication decision remains under the authority of the editor.

Back to top

Revision Process

If revision is requested, the authors must submit:

• a revised version of the manuscript; and
• a response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed directly by the editor or returned to the original reviewers, depending on the extent and nature of the revision.

Back to top

Review Timeframe

The journal aims to manage the review process in a timely and efficient manner. However, the total review time may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript quality, and the number of revision rounds required.

Authors are encouraged to monitor manuscript progress through the journal system and to respond promptly to editorial requests during the review process.

Back to top

Peer Review Flowchart

Back to top