Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for reviewing for Big.D. Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the academic quality, scientific rigor, and integrity of the journal.

Big.D is an interdisciplinary journal focusing on ecological design, sustainability, design technology, environmental ecology, industrial ecology, and human-centered innovation. The journal adopts a rigorous double-blind peer-review process.

 

Peer-Review Policy

  • D operates a double-blind peer-review system.
  • Authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.
  • Each manuscript is typically evaluated by three independent reviewers.
  • Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or authorized Academic Editors.

 

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations;
  • Maintain confidentiality of all submitted materials;
  • Declare any conflicts of interest before accepting a review;
  • Complete reviews within the requested timeframe;
  • Report suspected ethical issues, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, authorship disputes, or peer-review misconduct.

Reviewers should not use unpublished materials for personal research or share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals.

 

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Originality and Contribution

  • Does the manuscript provide novel insights or approaches?
  • Does it contribute meaningfully to ecological design, sustainability, or related interdisciplinary fields?

Scientific and Technical Quality

  • Are the methods appropriate and sufficiently rigorous?
  • Are the results reliable and adequately supported by data or analysis?
  • Are the conclusions justified?

Practical and Engineering Value

  • Does the work demonstrate practical relevance, engineering significance, or application value?
  • Does it contribute to sustainable development or design innovation?

Presentation and Organization

  • Is the manuscript clearly written and logically organized?
  • Are figures, tables, and references appropriate and sufficient?

 

Review Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept;
  • Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision;
  • Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Final decisions are made by the Academic Editor.

 

Review Timeline

Reviewers are generally expected to:

  • Submit initial review reports within 14days;
  • Review revised manuscripts within 7days whenever possible.

If additional time is required, reviewers should contact the editorial office promptly.

 

Ethical Standards

Big.D follows the principles and best practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reviewers should:

  • Ensure reviews remain fair, respectful, and professional;
  • Avoid personal criticism;
  • Base comments on academic evidence and professional judgment;

Inform the editorial office of any ethical concerns.