Peer Review Policy

Mathematical Structures and Computational Modeling (MSCM) uses a double-blind peer-review process for all scholarly submissions that are sent for external review. Under this model, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors. The policy is designed to support independent, fair, rigorous, and constructive evaluation while protecting the confidentiality and integrity of the editorial process.

1. Scope of the Policy

This policy applies to all manuscript categories that are subject to external peer review, including:

Original Research Articles, Review Articles, Systematic or Scoping Reviews, Short Communications, Technical and Methodological Papers, Computational and Modeling Studies, Special Issue manuscripts and other scholarly contributions designated for peer review by the Editor

Editorials, announcements, corrections, correspondence, invited content, and other contributions may follow an editorial assessment process rather than full external peer review where appropriate.

Special Issue manuscripts are subject to the same standards of scholarly quality, research integrity, confidentiality, and peer-review rigor as regular submissions.

2. Purpose of Double-Blind Review

The double-blind model is intended to reduce the potential influence of author identity, institutional affiliation, geographic location, professional status, or reputation on the assessment of a manuscript.

Reviewers are therefore expected to evaluate submissions primarily on their:

mathematical and scientific soundness;
originality and significance;
methodological and computational rigor;
clarity and completeness;
validity of mathematical arguments, models, algorithms, simulations, or analyses;
reproducibility and transparency where applicable; and
relevance to the Journal's aims and scope.

Double-blind review does not imply that bias can be eliminated completely. The Journal therefore combines anonymization with appropriate reviewer selection, conflict-of-interest screening, and editorial oversight.

3. Initial Editorial Assessment

Every submission first undergoes an editorial assessment before external peer review. The Editor or a designated member of the editorial team may assess:

alignment with the Journal's scope;
originality and potential contribution;
mathematical or computational quality;
methodological adequacy;
completeness of the submission;
ethical and research-integrity considerations;
plagiarism or inappropriate text-reuse concerns; and
compliance with essential submission requirements.

A manuscript may be declined or returned to the authors without external review if it is clearly outside the Journal's scope, does not meet essential scholarly standards, is substantially incomplete, or raises unresolved integrity concerns. An initial editorial decision is not a substitute for peer review where external review is warranted.

4. Preparation for Double-Blind Review

Authors should submit a manuscript that does not unnecessarily reveal their identities.

The main manuscript should therefore:

omit author names, affiliations, email addresses, ORCID identifiers, and other direct identifying information;
avoid self-identifying statements where they are not necessary;
use neutral wording when referring to the authors' previous work where practical;
remove identifying information from file properties and document metadata where feasible; and
place acknowledgements, funding information, and other identifying statements in the designated submission fields or in a separate file where the submission system permits.

Authors should not compromise the clarity or accuracy of scholarly attribution merely to achieve anonymity. Relevant previous publications should continue to be cited appropriately.

The editorial office may request a revised anonymized file if identifying information could reasonably compromise the double-blind process.

5. Selection of Peer Reviewers

The Editor is responsible for selecting reviewers with appropriate expertise for the manuscript. Reviewers may be selected based on:

expertise in the relevant mathematical field;
knowledge of the computational or modeling methodology;
experience with the specific application area;
methodological or statistical expertise where required;
publication record and scholarly competence; and
ability to provide an independent and timely assessment.

The Journal normally seeks at least two independent external reviewers for manuscripts sent for full peer review. The Editor may appoint additional reviewers when specialist expertise is required, when reviewer reports substantially diverge, or when further assessment is necessary. Reviewer selection remains an editorial responsibility. The Journal does not guarantee that a particular number of reviews will be obtained before an editorial decision is made.

6. Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must be able to evaluate the manuscript independently and objectively. A reviewer should decline an invitation when a personal, professional, institutional, financial, academic, or other relationship could reasonably affect—or appear to affect—their judgment.

Potential conflicts may include:

current employment at the same institution as an author;
recent collaboration with an author;
recent supervisory or mentoring relationships;
close personal relationships;
significant academic rivalry;
direct financial or commercial interests;
involvement in a competing project;
having a manuscript or research project that substantially overlaps with the submitted work; or
any other circumstance that could compromise impartiality.

COPE guidance specifically emphasizes disclosure of competing interests and recommends that reviewers decline where relationships such as recent collaboration, mentorship, or shared institutional affiliation could compromise independence.

Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts to the Editor before accepting or completing a review. The Editor will determine whether the conflict requires reassignment.

7. Reviewers Suggested by Authors

Authors may recommend up to three potential reviewers with relevant expertise. Suggested reviewers should:

possess appropriate expertise in the subject of the manuscript;
be capable of providing an independent assessment;
have no significant conflict of interest with the authors or the research;
have no inappropriate personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationship with the authors; and
not have been involved in the preparation of the manuscript.

Authors should provide institutional affiliations and professional email addresses where available. Note that reviewer suggestions are advisory only. The Editor is not required to select any suggested reviewer and may independently identify alternative reviewers.

The Journal may verify the identity and suitability of suggested reviewers before issuing an invitation. A suggested reviewer will not be selected merely because they are recommended by the authors.

8. Requests to Exclude or Remove Potential Reviewers

Authors may identify individuals whom they believe should not be invited to review their manuscript.

Such requests should be submitted at the time of submission and should include a brief, legitimate justification, such as:

a significant conflict of interest;
a recent or ongoing professional relationship;
a substantial academic or commercial conflict;
a direct competing research interest; or
another circumstance that could reasonably compromise impartiality.

Authors should not request exclusion solely because a researcher has previously published critical, contrary, or unfavorable findings. Excluded-reviewer requests are treated as confidential editorial information and are considered on a case-by-case basis. The Editor may honor, partially honor, or decline such a request where necessary to secure appropriate independent expertise. The Editor retains full discretion over reviewer selection.

9. Special Issue Peer Review

Special Issue manuscripts must undergo the same substantive peer-review standards as manuscripts submitted to the Journal's regular issues. Guest Editors may assist with identifying potential reviewers; assessing the thematic relevance of submissions; monitoring the progress of reviews; and providing editorial recommendations.

However, Guest Editors must not compromise reviewer independence or bypass the Journal's peer-review requirements.

9.1 Independence of Special Issue Review

A Guest Editor must not manage the review of a manuscript where they are an author or co-author;

closely associated with the authors; from the same institution as an author where this creates a conflict; directly involved in the underlying research; or otherwise unable to make an independent editorial judgment.

In such circumstances, responsibility for the manuscript should be transferred to an independent Editor or another appropriately designated editorial representative.

9.2 Reviewer Selection for Special Issues

Authors of Special Issue manuscripts may suggest or request exclusion of reviewers under the same rules applicable to regular submissions. Guest Editors and authors must not arrange or influence reviews in a manner intended to produce a predetermined editorial outcome. Special Issue manuscripts remain subject to the Journal's standard requirements concerning originality, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, research integrity, and editorial independence.

10. Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and all associated information as confidential. They must not disclose the manuscript or its contents to others; share unpublished data, methods, results, or ideas from the manuscript; use information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage; contact the authors directly about the manuscript; publicly discuss the manuscript before publication; retain or distribute manuscript files after completing the review; or use the manuscript to develop competing work without appropriate authorization.

Confidentiality is a fundamental part of the peer-review process. Established guidance likewise treats submitted manuscripts as confidential communications and requires reviewers to protect the information they contain.

11. Use of AI by Reviewers

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, or identifiable manuscript content to generative AI or other external systems where confidentiality cannot be assured.

AI-assisted tools must not replace the reviewer's own scholarly assessment. Where the Journal permits limited AI assistance, reviewers remain fully responsible for the confidentiality, accuracy, originality, and integrity of their review. Reviewers should follow any additional instructions issued by the Journal regarding AI-assisted reviewing.

12. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers should provide an assessment that is:

Independent (based on the manuscript rather than the influence from authors/journal/publisher)
Constructive (identifying weaknesses while providing useful recommendations for improvement)
Evidence-based (supported by clear reasoning, mathematical analysis, methodological considerations, or relevant literature where appropriate)
Respectful (free from personal, dismissive, discriminatory, or inappropriate language.) and
Timely (submitted within the agreed review period.)

For mathematical and computational manuscripts, reviewers should consider, as applicable:

originality of the mathematical contribution;

correctness of mathematical arguments and derivations;
clarity and validity of assumptions;
appropriateness of models and formulations;
methodological and computational rigor;
correctness and adequacy of algorithms or numerical methods;
convergence, stability, consistency, or error analysis where relevant;
adequacy of computational experiments and validation;
reproducibility of computational results;
appropriate use and interpretation of data;
significance of the findings; and
relevance to the Journal's scope.

Reviewers should distinguish between essential issues affecting validity and minor suggestions concerning presentation or clarity.

13. Reviewer Reports

A reviewer report should normally address an overall assessment of the manuscript's contribution and suitability; major issues that affect mathematical, computational, methodological, or scientific validity; minor issues involving clarity, notation, organization, references, figures, tables, or presentation; specific recommendations that could strengthen the manuscript; and confidential comments to the Editor, where necessary.

Reviewers should not make personal comments about authors or speculate about their motives, competence, or identity. A recommendation such as "accept," "minor revision," "major revision," or "reject" assists the Editor but does not determine the final decision.

14. Reviewer Anonymity

Under the Journal's double-blind model authors do not receive reviewers' names; reviewers do not receive authors' names; reviewer identities are not disclosed through editorial correspondence; and reviewers should not identify themselves within their reports. If a reviewer inadvertently reveals their identity, the Editor will determine whether the review can remain part of the process without compromising fairness.

The Journal does not disclose reviewer identities to authors unless the Journal explicitly changes its review model and provides appropriate notice.

15. Editorial Decisions

The Editor makes the final editorial decision after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, editorial assessment, and the overall scholarly requirements of the Journal. Possible outcomes include Accept, Minor/major Revision, Reject and Resubmit, where appropriate or, Reject.

The Editor is not required to follow a reviewer's recommendation. Reviewer reports are advisory evidence for the editorial decision, not votes. A manuscript may be rejected even when individual reviewers recommend publication if the Editor identifies substantial concerns regarding scope, originality, mathematical validity, methodological rigor, research integrity, or other editorial considerations. Conversely, a manuscript may be invited for revision where reviewers identify remediable weaknesses.

16. Divergent or Inconclusive Reviews

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Editor may assess the existing reports and make a decision; request clarification from a reviewer; obtain an additional independent review; seek specialist advice; or conduct additional editorial assessment. The number of reviews obtained does not by itself determine the outcome.

17. Revision and Re-Review

When revision is requested, authors should respond systematically to reviewer and editorial comments.

A revised submission should normally include a clean revised manuscript; a version showing the changes, where requested; and a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each substantive comment was addressed. Where an author does not adopt a recommendation, the response should provide a clear scholarly justification.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers, sent to new reviewers, or assessed solely by the Editor, depending on the nature of the revisions.

18. Reviewer Disagreement and Author Responses

Authors may respectfully challenge a reviewer's comment when they believe it is based on a misunderstanding, factual error, inappropriate methodological assumption, or other substantive issue.

Authors should respond with evidence and reasoned explanation rather than personal criticism. The Editor will determine whether a disputed point requires further clarification, additional review, or no further action.

19. Appeals Concerning Peer Review

Authors who believe that a significant procedural error, undisclosed conflict of interest, reviewer misconduct, or serious misunderstanding has materially affected an editorial decision may submit an appeal to the Editor.

An appeal should identify the specific concern; provide relevant evidence; distinguish procedural concerns from disagreement with scholarly judgment; and explain why reconsideration is warranted.

However, an appeal does not guarantee reversal of the decision. The Editor may seek an independent assessment where appropriate.

20. Reviewer Misconduct

Concerns about reviewer conduct may include:

breach of confidentiality;
undisclosed conflicts of interest;
inappropriate use of unpublished information;
plagiarism of manuscript ideas or content;
discriminatory or abusive comments;
deliberate obstruction of publication; or
inappropriate attempts to influence authors.

Where credible concerns arise, the Journal may investigate and take appropriate action, including removal of the reviewer from the current review, exclusion from future reviewing, correction of the review record, or referral to the reviewer's institution or another appropriate body where warranted.

21. Editorial Independence

Editors, Guest Editors, Editorial Board members, and reviewers must not allow personal, institutional, commercial, financial, or academic interests to influence the evaluation of manuscripts. Editors with a relevant conflict must recuse themselves from handling the manuscript and arrange for an independent editorial decision. This principle applies equally to manuscripts submitted by Editorial Board members, Guest Editors, or other individuals involved in the Journal's editorial operations. Guidance for editors similarly emphasizes recusal where relationships or activities create potential conflicts.

22. Confidentiality of Editorial Records

Information concerning submissions, reviewer identities, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and decisions is confidential. The Journal maintains appropriate editorial records to support the integrity and traceability of the peer-review process. Such information will not ordinarily be disclosed to authors, reviewers, or third parties except where required for legitimate editorial, ethical, legal, or research-integrity purposes.

23. Post-Publication Concerns

Peer review does not eliminate the possibility of errors or concerns being identified after publication. If significant concerns arise about a published article, the Journal may investigate the matter and, where appropriate, publish a correction, addendum, expression of concern, retraction, or other post-publication notice in accordance with its publication-ethics policies. Authors and reviewers are expected to cooperate with reasonable requests for clarification or supporting information when concerns arise.

24. Editorial Responsibility

The Editor-in-Chief has overall responsibility for ensuring that the peer-review process is conducted fairly, confidentially, and consistently with the Journal's editorial and publication-ethics standards. Peer review is intended to provide independent scholarly assessment and constructive feedback, not to guarantee publication or establish entitlement to acceptance. The final responsibility for the selection and publication of content rests with the Journal's editorial leadership.