Peer Review Process

The Mathematical  Culture and Thought is committed to comply with one of the most important principles of scientific journals, i.e. peer review, and  an editorial assessment  in accordance with the guidelines of the International Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) and the executive regulations of the Law of Prevention and Combating Fraud in Scientific Works.   It displays a concern for fairness, rigour, and transparency which motivates all its collaborators. On this basis, the submitted papers are reviewed in the following steps.

  •  All papers  submitted to the Mathematical  Culture and Thought are initially   assessed  by  the Editor-in-Chief to determine whether or not the paper meets the appropriate quality and relevance requirements suitable for peer review. This stage includes checks for authorship, competing interests, ethics approval and plagiarism  (it  takes one week).
  • The paper submitted  to the Editorial Board  will be evaluated in terms of compliance with the aims and scope of the journal, as well as compliance with the principles of publication ethics, and if approved by the majority of the Editorial Board members, it will be assigned to   one   of the Editorial Board members. This person undertakes to have it evaluated by two peers who are experts in the field.
  •  All types of contributions are subject  to rigorous peer review. The journal requires potential reviewers to have scientific expertise or significant work experience in a relevant field. The journal   avoids any conflict of interest between authors, reviewers, and editorial board members.
  • Authors  may  nominate or exclude reviewers during submission process.
  • Reviewing is  single-blind peer review, and the author will never know the identity of the reviewer (s). The review period is expected to take approximately 1-3 months depending on factors such as reviewers, the length and the  type of the paper.
  • Once the evaluation is completed, a summary of all the key elements of the evaluation will be produced. Based on the reviews, the editor will make a recommendation for rejection, minor or major revisions, or acceptance, and communicate this, along with the reviewers’ comments, to the corresponding author.
  • All authors are obliged to make the requested changes and correct mistakes. In each case, the authors and reviewers will come to a common understanding of the deadline, based on the nature and quantity of the requested changes.
  • Finally, after the review  (if recommended by the primary reviewer) and receiving the opinion of the comparative reviewer (s), the reworked articles are carefully read by the editorial board members, who will reach a decision on the suitability of the article  for publication. The acceptance criteria for all papers are the quality and originality of the content and its significance to journal readership. The positive opinion of one  referee and the majority of the Editorial Board  is requiredfor   the final acceptance of a paper.   The final decision about the paper will be sent to the author by e-mail.
  • In the case of a rejection, if an author appeals the decision, the Editorial Board will suggest changes to be made before the article is resubmitted. The new version will be treated as a new article and follow the selection process from the beginning.
  • The articles accepted for publication undergo a linguistic revision and are copyedited before being published; the same is true for the abstract in English.
  • In order to speed up the review   and publication process, it is strogly  recommended to follow the  instructions   in the   Instruction for Authors.
  • All stages of   the review process can be tracked in the system  via  the New Manuscript section in the Author Panel.
  • We also require that authors to respect the confidentiality of the  review process, unless the journal  adopts an open review policy.
  • The journal consents to furnish a response to every submission. The Editorial Board shall always be willing to publish clarifications, corrections, retractions, and apologies when needed.
  • At each stage of the peer  review process, the editors and reviewers shall be careful to identify any cases of misconduct. In the case of misconduct, the Editorial Board deals with the different cases by following the appropriate COPE recommendations presented in the Publication Ethics.
  • To appeal an editorial decision, contact the Editor-in-Chief  and specify the reason for your appeal. Your appeal will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief. The final decision regarding your appeal   rests with the Editor-in-Chief.