BANGLADESH JOURNAL OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

P-ISSN: 2687-850X
E-ISSN: 2687-8518
Abbreviated Key Title: BJMSR
Issues Per Year: Two-Four
Review System: Double Blind Peer Review
Publisher: CRIBFB
History: Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research has been published since 2019.  

Aims and Scope

Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research is a refereed journal that is published Semiannually. The journal aims are to publish papers that provide current issues within Multidisciplinary Scientific Research in Asia, including Central Asia, East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East/Africa, and other regions like the Americas, Europe, etc such as:

1. Business, Accounting & Finance, Economics, Management, Marketing
2. Education and Linguistics, Humanities, Arts and Social Science
3. Materials Science, Physical Sciences, Sciences and Engineering
4. Biology and Life Sciences
5. Mathematics & Statistics
6. Transportation & Logistics
7. Engineering & Technology
8. Electrical & Computer Science
9. Earth, Energy & Environment
10. Architecture & Civil Engineering
11. Medicine, Health & Food Sciences
12. Chemistry & Chemical Engineering.

Section Policies

Articles

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer-Reviewed

Publication Frequency

2021 Semiannual

2020 Semiannual

2019 Semiannual

Peer Review Process

The peer-review process can be broadly summarized into 8 steps, although these steps can vary slightly between CRIBFB Journals. See below.

  1. Submission of Paper
    The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. For USA contributors, this is usually via an online system. For international scholars/contributors, CRIBFB Journals accept submissions by email or online, which is indicated on the submission information.

    2. Editorial Office Assessment
    The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.

    3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief
    The Editor-in-Chief checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

    4. Invitation to Reviewers
    The Editor-in-Chief sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly this is 3, but there is some variation between journals.

    5. Review is Conducted
    The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

    6. Journal Evaluates the Reviews
    The Editor-in-Chief considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the Editor-in-Chief may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

    7. The Decision is Communicated
    The Editor-in-Chief sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.
    8. Last Steps: If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the Editor-in-Chief may include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the Editor-in-Chief.

https://www.cribfb.com/images/review_policy_img.jpg