Editorial Process
First of all, a manuscript can be considered for publication in the Electronic Journal of Applied Mathematics (EJAM) only if the same work has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration for publication by another journal.
EJAM applies a single-blind peer-review process. In this review model, the identity of the reviewer is kept confidential from the author, while the reviewer is aware of the identity of the author.
Peer review is an essential evaluation procedure for maintaining a high academic and scientific standard. The purpose of the review process is to ensure constructive and critical assessment of submissions so that published articles meet the quality, originality, clarity, and relevance expected by the journal.
After submission, each manuscript is assigned a unique manuscript ID through the online editorial system. This identification number should be used in all correspondence with the editorial office. All editorial workflow is carried out through the online submission system.
Each submitted manuscript first undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team. At this stage, the manuscript is checked for its relevance to the aims and scope of the journal, originality, academic quality, clarity of presentation, and overall suitability for peer review. The Editor-in-Chief may also assign the manuscript to an appropriate handling editor according to the subject area. Manuscripts are handled by editors who have no potential conflicts of interest with any of the authors.
During the preliminary assessment, the editors may return the manuscript to the authors for technical or formatting corrections, or reject it without external review if it is considered outside the scope of the journal or unlikely to satisfy the standards required for publication.
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally sent to two or more external expert reviewers for evaluation. Where necessary, the editors may seek additional opinions from further reviewers or editorial board members before making a final decision.
The review process is intended to be completed within a reasonable period. However, the overall editorial timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability, the time required for revisions by the authors, and the number of review rounds.
Based on the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s assessment, one of the following editorial decisions may be made:
- Acceptance
- Rejection
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
Acceptance
If a manuscript is accepted for publication, it proceeds to the production stage, which may include copyediting, language editing, proofreading, author corrections, typesetting, and final publication on the journal website. Authors will be notified when the proofs are ready for review.
Rejection
If a manuscript is not considered suitable for publication, it will be rejected. The decision will normally be communicated to the authors together with the reasons for rejection.
Minor Revision
If minor revision is requested, the authors are asked to revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ and editors’ comments and submit a corrected version within the specified time. The revised manuscript may be assessed by the editor and, where necessary, by the reviewers again.
Major Revision
If major revision is required, the authors are expected to substantially revise the manuscript in response to the comments provided. After resubmission, the revised manuscript is usually returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, and a new recommendation is made on the basis of the revised version.
The final decision on all manuscripts rests with the Editor. EJAM is committed to a fair, rigorous, transparent, and efficient editorial process.
