Journal of Big Data Research
Guidelines for editors
What a handling editor does with a manuscript, from the first look at scope to the decision letter. Written for working use: each section states the judgment being made and the rule that governs it.
- Review model
- Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
- Reviewers per manuscript
- Normally at least two independent subject-matter experts
- Decision basis
- Scope, quality, rigor, ethics, reporting, relevance
- Full policy
- Editorial Policies
The first judgment: does it fit?
Screening asks one question: does the manuscript make a substantive contribution to big-data research? Read what the work operates on and what it contributes, as the Aims and Scope sets out. Both halves matter, and neither is settled by a topic label or by the size of a file.
Scope is a separate judgment from the strength of the evidence. A manuscript can be squarely in scope and still need major revision; a polished manuscript can be out of scope. Keep the two apart in the decision letter, so the author knows which one is at issue.
Apply no gate the approved scope does not contain. Novelty, a mechanism, a minimum dataset size, a particular setting or population, and demonstrated clinical benefit are none of them conditions of eligibility. Theoretical work, replication, validation, observational findings, synthesis and applied research using established methods are all within the remit.
Screening outcomes
- Proceeds to review
- The work meets the journal's scope and minimum requirements.
- Returned for completion
- Required statements or files are missing. Say which, and invite resubmission.
- Declined at screening
- The work does not make a contribution to big-data research. Give the reason in one or two sentences and, where you can, name a better-suited venue type.
Selecting and briefing reviewers
Match the expertise to the contribution
A manuscript is read against the evidence its own contribution family carries. A systems paper needs someone who can judge a workload and a scalability measurement; an applied paper needs both a methods reader and someone who knows the field the data came from. Two complementary readers are usually better than two of the same kind.
How many, and from where
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts. Independent means no recent collaboration, no shared institution, and no supervisory relationship with the authors.
Anonymized handling
When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers. Check the reviewer file before it goes out, including figure captions, acknowledgments and file metadata.
What to ask for
Ask reviewers to separate the contribution claimed from the evidence offered, and to say which parts of the manuscript they are and are not able to judge. A reviewer who declares a limit is more useful than one who does not.
Independence
Conflicts, confidentiality and AI
Conflicts
Recuse early
Editors disclose conflicts and step aside where one exists — their own submissions, those of close collaborators, and manuscripts from their own institution. Hand the manuscript back to the editorial office rather than handling it and disclosing afterwards.
Confidentiality
The manuscript is not yours to share
A manuscript under consideration is confidential. Do not discuss it outside the editorial process, do not use its content, and do not retain files once the decision is made.
AI tools
Permission first, then disclosure
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured. The same rule applies to editors handling a manuscript.
Reading the reports and deciding
Reviewer reports are advice, not votes. Weigh them against the manuscript and against each other: a confident report that does not engage with the method carries less than a careful one that does. Where two reports disagree on something material, seek a third reader rather than splitting the difference.
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. Decisions remain independent of fees, services, memberships, and editorial roles.
Write the decision so the author can act on it. Say what the decision is, name the points that drove it, and distinguish what must change from what would improve the paper. Where you are asking for revision, be specific enough that the author can tell when they are done.
Decision letters
- Accept
- The work is sound and the claims are supported.
- Minor revision
- The conclusions stand; specific points need clarifying or correcting.
- Major revision
- The contribution is worth pursuing but the evidence or reporting is not yet sufficient. State what would settle it.
- Decline
- Out of scope, or the claims are not supportable by evidence the authors could reasonably add. Give the reason plainly.
Integrity concerns, corrections and appeals
A concern during review
Where plagiarism, duplicate submission, image or data manipulation, or an authorship problem is suspected, pause the manuscript and refer it to the editorial office. Do not raise the allegation with the authors yourself; the journal follows COPE guidance and contacts the corresponding author first.
A concern after publication
Refer it to the editorial office with the article identifier and the specific issue. The outcome may be a correction, an expression of concern while the matter is investigated, or a retraction; each is published and linked to the article.
Appeals
An author may appeal a decision once. The appeal is considered by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision, so a handling editor does not review an appeal against their own letter.
When to escalate
Refer to the editorial office where a conflict cannot be resolved, where a manuscript sits outside your expertise, where an author disputes the handling, or where a decision would set a precedent for the journal.
Reference and contact
These guidelines summarize the editor's part of the process. The editorial policies carry the full statement of each rule, and the scope page carries the standards of evidence that reviewers are asked to apply.
Related pages
- Reviewers
- Guidelines for reviewers
- Board
- Editorial board
- Authors
- Instructions for Authors
- Editorial office
- info@openaccesspub.org