Peer Review Process and Policy

The Journal of Mathematics and Computing Science (JMCS) is committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics and supporting responsible research practices. JMCS adheres to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers to ensure fairness, transparency, and integrity throughout the review process. Peer review is an essential element in maintaining the quality and credibility of academic publishing. It relies on mutual trust and ethical conduct from all parties- authors, reviewers, and editors.

1. Type of Peer Review
JMCS uses a single-blind peer review process. In this system, reviewers remain anonymous to the authors, but reviewers are aware of the authors' identities.

2. Reviewer Selection Process
Reviewers are carefully chosen based on their expertise relevant to the submitted manuscript. The JMCS reviewer database is regularly updated to ensure quality assessments. While authors may suggest potential reviewers, these recommendations are considered at the editor’s discretion and are not guaranteed. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers before a decision is made by the editorial team.

3. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts using the following criteria:
•Originality of the research, methodology, and findings
•Robustness of research design and methodology
•Clarity of results and validity of statistical analysis
•Proper citation of relevant and prior work
•Adherence to ethical standards, including plagiarism checks
•Contribution to advancing knowledge in the field of mathematics or computer science
While language editing is not a primary duty of reviewers, they may offer suggestions to improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript. Final language and style editing will be handled by the editor, and authors may be required to proofread or revise their manuscript accordingly.

4. Peer Review Procedure
When a reviewer receives an invitation to assess a manuscript, they are asked to respond promptly via the provided link. Once accepted, the reviewer can submit their comments directly through the system or upload a review file. Reviewers will be required to select one of the following initial recommendations:
1.Accept Submission – Manuscript meets journal standards and is ready for publication.
2.Revisions Required – Minor changes needed; may be re-reviewed or accepted by the editor.
3.Resubmit for Review – Major revisions required; a new round of review is necessary.
4.Decline Submission – Manuscript does not meet the required standards and is rejected.

5. Review Timeline
The timeline for the peer review process largely depends on reviewer availability and response time. Typically, the entire review process is completed within 1 to 3 months.

6. Editorial Decision
The final decision on a manuscript is made by the editor, based on the reviewers’ reports and the revisions submitted by the author(s). The decision—whether to accept, request revisions, or reject—will be communicated to the author(s) via email.