PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Policy

Blockchain Frontier Technology (BFRONT) applies a Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure that all submitted manuscripts are evaluated fairly, objectively, and independently. The identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

All submitted manuscripts undergo several editorial and peer review stages before a final publication decision is made. The review process involves the Editor-in-Chief, Handling Editor, and at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be rejected at any stage of the evaluation process.

Editorial Process Flow

Overview of the manuscript evaluation and publication process.

Figure 1. Editorial and Double-Blind Peer Review Process of BFRONT.

Review Workflow

Ten stages from manuscript submission to online publication.

1Manuscript Submission and Initial Verification

All manuscripts submitted through the BFRONT journal system are received by the editorial office. The editorial team verifies the completeness of the submission, author information, required documents, manuscript structure, and compliance with the journal's author guidelines.

Estimated Time: 1–3 working days.

Pass: Manuscripts that meet the technical requirements proceed to editorial screening.
Return or Reject: Incomplete submissions or manuscripts that do not comply with submission requirements may be returned for correction. Submissions that remain non-compliant may be rejected.

2Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)

The Editor-in-Chief assigns a Handling Editor to assess the manuscript's suitability with BFRONT's focus and scope, scientific relevance, originality, writing quality, methodological approach, and compliance with publication ethics.

Estimated Time: 3–5 working days.

Pass: Manuscripts that meet the journal's initial standards proceed to the next stage.
Desk Rejection: Manuscripts outside the journal's scope, demonstrating insufficient scientific contribution, or failing to meet fundamental editorial requirements will be rejected at this stage.

3Plagiarism and Research Ethics Screening

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening undergo a similarity check and an assessment of potential research and publication ethics issues. The editorial team examines possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate citation practices, and other indications of research misconduct.

Estimated Time: 1–3 working days.

Pass: Manuscripts that satisfy the journal's originality and ethical requirements proceed to peer review.
Further Action: Manuscripts with unacceptable similarity or suspected ethical violations may be returned for clarification, rejected, or handled according to the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

4Reviewer Assignment

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who possess relevant academic qualifications and expertise in the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their research background, publication experience, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Estimated Time: 3–5 working days.

Outcome: Manuscripts proceed to external peer review after suitable reviewers have been assigned. If suitable reviewers cannot be secured, the editorial team may seek alternative reviewers.

5Double-Blind Peer Review and Reviewer Assessment

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently without knowing the identities of the authors. Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and novelty of the research.
  • Scientific significance and contribution to the field.
  • Relevance to BFRONT's focus and scope.
  • Methodological rigor and technical accuracy.
  • Quality of data analysis and interpretation.
  • Clarity of presentation and organization.
  • Validity of findings and conclusions.
  • Compliance with research and publication ethics.

Estimated Time: Maximum of 14 calendar days after the review invitation is accepted.

Outcome: Reviewers submit detailed comments and recommendations to the editor. If a reviewer does not complete the review within the specified period, the editor may send a reminder or appoint a replacement reviewer.

6Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' assessments, the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor evaluates the recommendations and determines the appropriate editorial decision. The possible decisions are:

  • Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's requirements and can proceed to publication.
  • Minor Revision: Only limited revisions are required before acceptance.
  • Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required, and the manuscript may undergo another round of peer review.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards.

Estimated Time: 3–5 working days after the required reviewer reports have been received.

Outcome: The editorial decision and reviewers' comments are communicated to the corresponding author through the journal system.

7Manuscript Revision by Authors

Authors receiving a Minor Revision or Major Revision decision must submit:

  • A revised manuscript addressing all reviewer and editor comments.
  • A detailed response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed, including justification for any comments that cannot be followed.

Revision Deadlines:

Minor Revision: Within 7 calendar days.

Major Revision: Within 14 calendar days.

Authors who require additional time must request an extension from the editor before the deadline expires.

Late Revision: Failure to submit the revised manuscript within the specified period without an approved extension may result in the manuscript being considered withdrawn or rejected.

8Further Review and Revision Evaluation

Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the Handling Editor and may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment, particularly when substantial scientific or methodological revisions have been requested.

Estimated Time: Maximum of 14 calendar days for further reviewer evaluation.

Outcome: The manuscript may be accepted, returned for further revision, or rejected if the authors fail to adequately address the reviewers' concerns. Repeatedly inadequate revisions or unresolved critical issues may result in rejection.

9Final Editorial Decision

After all required revisions and evaluations have been completed, the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor makes the final editorial decision based on the reviewers' recommendations, the quality of the revised manuscript, and the journal's publication standards.

Estimated Time: 3–5 working days after the final evaluation.

Accepted: The manuscript proceeds to the production stage.
Rejected: Manuscripts that do not satisfy the required standards are rejected.

10Copyediting, Proofreading, and Online Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout preparation, author proofreading, DOI registration, and online publication. Authors are responsible for checking the final proof and confirming that any corrections are accurate before publication.

Estimated Time: Approximately 1–3 weeks after acceptance, depending on the production schedule and author response.

Outcome: The finalized article is published online in accordance with BFRONT's publication schedule.

Submission and Review Timeline

The following table summarizes the estimated duration of each stage in the BFRONT editorial and peer review process.

Review Stage Estimated Duration
Initial Verification 1–3 working days
Initial Editorial Screening 3–5 working days
Plagiarism and Ethics Screening 1–3 working days
Reviewer Assignment 3–5 working days
Double-Blind Peer Review Maximum 14 calendar days
Editorial Decision 3–5 working days
Minor Revision by Authors 7 calendar days
Major Revision by Authors 14 calendar days
Further Review Maximum 14 calendar days
Final Editorial Decision 3–5 working days
Copyediting and Publication Approximately 1–3 weeks

The estimated review and editorial decision period is approximately 6–8 weeks, excluding the time required by authors to prepare revisions and any additional review rounds. Actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the extent of revisions required.

Rejection Policy

BFRONT reserves the right to reject a manuscript at any stage of the editorial and peer review process if it fails to satisfy the journal's requirements. A manuscript may be rejected for, but is not limited to, the following reasons:

  1. The manuscript is outside the journal's focus and scope.
  2. The manuscript does not demonstrate sufficient originality, novelty, or scientific contribution.
  3. The manuscript fails to meet the journal's technical and submission requirements and is not corrected when requested.
  4. The manuscript contains plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, falsified results, or other research ethics violations.
  5. The methodology, data analysis, or research findings are scientifically inadequate.
  6. The manuscript receives negative recommendations from reviewers and the editor determines that it does not meet the journal's publication standards.
  7. Authors fail to submit the required revisions within the specified deadline without an approved extension.
  8. The authors fail to adequately address critical reviewer comments after the revision process.

A rejection decision is final for the submitted version of the manuscript. Authors will be notified of the editorial decision through the journal system, together with the relevant comments or reasons where applicable.

Editorial Independence and Confidentiality

All manuscripts are handled confidentially throughout the editorial and peer review process. Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments where impartiality may be compromised. Editorial decisions are made independently by the Editor-in-Chief or authorized Handling Editor and are based on scientific quality, reviewer assessments, research integrity, and the journal's editorial policies.

BFRONT follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process for all submitted manuscripts. The editorial team is responsible for ensuring that the review process is conducted consistently, transparently, and in accordance with the journal's publication ethics.