Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the scholarly quality, integrity, and relevance of the Electronic Journal of Applied Mathematics (EJAM). The journal relies on reviewers to provide fair, objective, confidential, and constructive evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The purpose of peer review is to assist the editors in making editorial decisions and to help authors improve the quality, clarity, and scientific value of their work. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts on the basis of originality, mathematical correctness, significance, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the aims and scope of the journal.

2. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or distribute the manuscript or any part of its content with others without prior permission from the editor. Information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal or professional advantage.

3. Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Reviews should be conducted objectively and professionally. Reviewers should provide clear, reasoned, and evidence-based comments that help the editors assess the manuscript and help the authors improve it. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline a review invitation if they have any conflict of interest that could affect, or reasonably be perceived to affect, their impartiality. Conflicts of interest may arise from personal, professional, institutional, collaborative, or financial relationships with the authors or with the subject matter of the manuscript.

5. Timeliness

Reviewers should respond to review invitations promptly. If a reviewer accepts the invitation, the review should be completed within the agreed timeframe. If the reviewer cannot complete the review on time, the editorial office should be informed as soon as possible.

6. Expertise

Reviewers should accept invitations only for manuscripts that fall within their area of expertise and for which they can provide a competent and informed assessment.

7. Points to Consider When Reviewing

Reviewers are encouraged to consider the following questions when evaluating a manuscript:

  • Is the topic suitable for the journal’s aims and scope?
  • Is the work original and mathematically sound?
  • Are the results significant and clearly presented?
  • Are the arguments, proofs, methods, and conclusions correct and adequately justified?
  • Is the manuscript well organized and written in clear academic English?
  • Are the references relevant, sufficient, and properly used?
  • Are there any ethical concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, or improper citation practices?

8. Recommendation Categories

Reviewers are normally asked to recommend one of the following editorial outcomes:

  • accept,
  • minor revision,
  • major revision, or
  • reject.

Reviewers should support their recommendation with sufficient comments for both the editors and the authors.

9. Ethical Concerns

If reviewers suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated results, unethical citation practices, authorship problems, or any other form of misconduct, they should report their concerns confidentially to the editor and provide as much detail as possible.

10. Use of AI Tools

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscript content to third-party AI tools or services without explicit permission from the journal. Any use of AI-assisted tools must not compromise confidentiality, data security, or the integrity of the review process.

11. Final Note

EJAM greatly appreciates the time, expertise, and professional service of its reviewers. Careful and responsible peer review is vital to maintaining the quality and credibility of the journal.