Peer Review Process

The Advances in Applied Mathematics and Computing follows a rigorous, independent, fair, and transparent double-blind peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, integrity, and scholarly significance of all published research.

In the double-blind peer review system, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process to maintain impartiality and reduce bias.

Preliminary Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
  • Compliance with submission and formatting requirements
  • Completeness of declarations and supporting documents
  • Ethical compliance, including plagiarism screening

The preliminary review is generally completed within 7 days of submission.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the editorial assessment are reviewed by at least two independent expert reviewers. Additional reviewers may be assigned when necessary due to subject complexity or conflicting recommendations.

Reviewer Selection

  • Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise and publication record
  • Academic qualifications and reviewing experience are considered
  • All reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest
  • Individuals with conflicts are excluded from the review process

Evaluation Criteria

  • Originality and scientific contribution
  • Research significance and innovation
  • Methodological rigor and reproducibility
  • Accuracy of data analysis and interpretation
  • Ethical standards and research integrity
  • Clarity and scholarly presentation
  • Relevance and quality of references

Review Timeline

The typical timeframe for the complete peer review process is approximately 30–45 days. Timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, revision requirements, or the need for additional expert evaluation.

Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer recommendations and editorial assessment, one of the following decisions may be made:

  • Accept without revisions
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject

Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments and editorial guidance for manuscript improvement.

Revisions and Re-Review

Authors submitting revised manuscripts must provide a detailed point-by-point response to reviewer comments. Manuscripts requiring major revisions may undergo additional rounds of peer review.

Ethical Standards and Confidentiality

  • All manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as confidential
  • Reviewers must not share or use unpublished material
  • Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit
  • Commercial considerations do not influence editorial decisions
  • Ethical concerns are handled according to publication ethics policies

Appeals and Peer Review Queries

Authors who believe their manuscript was not reviewed according to the journal’s policies may submit a formal appeal with supporting justification.

Editorial Office: [email protected]