BIM

BIM 2025 Peer Review process

BIM 2025 follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, relevance, originality, and technical soundness of submitted papers. Each eligible paper is reviewed independently by two reviewers with relevant expertise. The review procedure is described below.

Initial Screening

  • Each submitted paper is initially checked by the conference editorial or program committee.
  • The paper is examined for relevance to the conference scope, general formatting requirements, completeness, and suitability for peer review.
  • Submissions that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to the authors before being sent for review.

Double-Blind Review

  • BIM 2025 follows a double-blind review policy.
  • The identities and affiliations of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers.
  • The identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.
  • Authors are therefore required to prepare manuscripts without information that may directly reveal their identities during the review stage.

Assignment of Reviewers

  • Each eligible paper is assigned to two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the submission.
  • Reviewer assignments are made considering the technical area, keywords, and subject matter of the paper.
  • Reviewers are expected to avoid evaluating papers where a potential conflict of interest exists.

Evaluation Criteria

  • Relevance to the scope and themes of BIM 2025.
  • Originality and novelty of the work.
  • Technical quality and scientific soundness.
  • Clarity of the research problem and objectives.
  • Appropriateness of the methodology or proposed approach.
  • Quality and adequacy of experiments, analysis, or evaluation.
  • Significance and usefulness of the results.
  • Adequacy of comparison with existing or related work.
  • Quality of presentation, organization, figures, tables, and technical writing.
  • Validity of the conclusions with respect to the presented results.
  • Overall contribution of the work to the relevant research field.

Independent Reviewer Reports

  • The two reviewers independently assess the submitted manuscript.
  • Each reviewer provides comments, observations, suggestions for improvement, and a recommendation regarding the paper.
  • Reviewer comments are communicated to the authors without revealing the identities of the reviewers.

Review Recommendations

  • Based on their assessment, reviewers provide recommendations concerning the suitability of the paper for BIM 2025.
  • Recommendations may indicate acceptance, acceptance subject to necessary revision, or rejection, depending on the technical quality and completeness of the work.

Handling Different Reviewer Opinions

  • If the two reviewers provide significantly different assessments, the paper and corresponding review reports are examined carefully by the responsible Program Committee members.
  • When necessary, additional expert opinion may be sought before making the final decision.

Revision by Authors

  • Where revisions are required, authors are expected to address the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers.
  • Authors should make appropriate corrections and improvements to the manuscript before submitting the revised or camera-ready version.
  • The revised manuscript may be checked to determine whether the important reviewer comments have been adequately addressed.

Final Decision

  • The final decision is made by the BIM 2025 Program Committee based on the reviewers’ reports, recommendations, technical quality of the submission, and compliance with conference requirements.
  • Acceptance is not determined solely by numerical review scores. Reviewer comments and the overall assessment of the paper are also considered.

Confidentiality

  • Submitted manuscripts and associated review materials are treated as confidential documents during the review process.
  • Reviewers are expected not to disclose, distribute, or use unpublished information contained in submitted manuscripts.

Conflict of Interest

  • Reviewers should not evaluate a manuscript where a professional, institutional, collaborative, personal, or other conflict of interest could affect the impartiality of the review.
  • Such cases are reassigned to an appropriate independent reviewer.

Research Quality and Ethical Considerations

  • Reviewers are encouraged to identify concerns related to originality, appropriate citation, research integrity, presentation of results, and other scholarly practices.
  • Papers should properly acknowledge relevant previous work and clearly distinguish the authors’ own contributions.

Camera-Ready Submission

  • Authors of accepted papers must submit the final camera-ready manuscript within the specified deadline.
  • The final manuscript should incorporate the necessary corrections suggested during the review process and comply with the prescribed publication format.

Final Acceptance for Publication

  • Final acceptance for inclusion in the BIM 2025 proceedings is subject to satisfactory completion of the review and revision process, submission of the camera-ready paper, and fulfillment of the applicable conference requirements.

Through this double-blind, two-reviewer peer-review process, BIM 2025 aims to maintain fairness, confidentiality, academic integrity, and a high standard of technical and scientific quality in its published proceedings.

Scroll to Top