Peer reviewing of articles is an essential part of the publishing process for scholarly work and is employed by all reputable scientific journals. It is an objective process that often provides useful feedback to authors and ensures that their work is presented in the best possible way. The Editorial Board of Annals of Communications in Mathematics would like to take this opportunity of publicly thanking our referees, past, present and future, for giving us their valuable time and for their vital contribution to the success of this journal.
Initial manuscript evaluation: Each manuscript is reviewed by a member of the Editorial Board, who may suggest referees if the paper passes the initial evaluation. In many cases, the Editors will return a paper promptly to its author(s) at this stage because it clearly does not match the journal’s stated interests or level of quality. Submissions that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least 2 experts for review. In rare cases, however, an exceptionally strong manuscript might be accepted after the initial reading.
Reviewing Process: Annals of Communications in Mathematics employs single-blind reviewing, in which the reviewer is unknown to the author, but the identity of the author is known to the reviewer. The Editor may seek the advice of up to three referees, chosen in consultation with appropriate members of the Editorial Board, from among experts in the field of specialization of the paper. A referee may recommend acceptance, perhaps following minor corrections; acceptance conditional on the successful completion of a more extensive revision; re-evaluation following a major revision that may involve extensions to the original manuscript; or rejection.
Final Decision: At the completion of the reviewing process the Editor is responsible for the final decision to accept or to reject a given article, and there the process ends. The Editors’ decision to accept or to reject an article will be sent promptly to the author, with suitably detailed explanations.
The following diagram illustrates the reviewing procedure:
Role of reviewers
Reviewers play a crucial role in contributing to the success of the Annals of Communications in Mathematics. A reviewer’s comments play a significant role in the peer review process. Their comments can decide whether an article is accepted or rejected or needs major/minor revisions. Reviewers are requested to review the articles submitted to them in detail and provide unbiased comments, which will improve the quality of the journals.
To maintain confidentiality, they are required to keep their identity undisclosed. If a reviewer feels that an article is technically unqualified, cannot be reviewed promptly, or has a conflict of interest, they should decline to review it. Any outside advice received must be approved by the editor and treated confidentially.
Reviewers should not pass on the article they are reviewing to another reviewer. Their main responsibility is to ensure that the articles published are of high quality and original work. If a reviewer finds that the article submitted for review is under consideration in another publication, they should inform the editor.
There are no fixed rules for analyzing an article. It should be done on a case-by-case basis, considering the article’s worthiness, quality, and originality. In general, the following aspects should be checked: the structure of the paper, its relevance to author guidelines, the purpose and objective of the article, the use of transitions, the introduction and conclusion/suggestions provided, the references provided to substantiate the content, grammar, punctuation, plagiarism issues, and the suitability of the article to the need.
Privacy and confidentiality
When submitting their manuscripts for review, authors trust editors with the results of their hard work and creativity. It is important to respect the confidentiality of authors and reviewers, as the publication of their work may affect their career and reputation. Disclosure of confidential information during the review process may violate the authors’ rights. Editors must not share any information about the manuscripts, including details about their content, status, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate, other than with the authors and reviewers. Confidentiality may only be breached if fraud or dishonesty is suspected. Reviewers and editorial staff members must also respect the authors’ rights by not discussing their work publicly before it is published. Reviewers should not make copies of the manuscript, share it with others, or publish their comments without permission from the author and editor. Editors should not keep copies of rejected manuscripts. It is important to maintain confidentiality and respect the rights of authors and reviewers throughout the review process.
Conflict of interest in reviewing process
When conducting double-blind peer reviews, it’s important to remember that the research community can be quite small. This means that reviewers may already be familiar with the author’s work. While providing a fair assessment of an article written by a friend or competitor is possible, it’s crucial to disclose any significant conflicts of interest to the editor. If the conflict of interest causes a significant positive or negative bias, declining the review request is better. It’s important to avoid personal judgment and criticism and focus solely on evaluating the article. This approach is more likely to be positively received by the author and can lead to better work. Honesty about conflicts of interest is always appreciated by editors, even if they need to find a replacement reviewer. If you have any concerns regarding conflicts of interest or ethical issues, please get in touch with the Editorial Office at the journal’s formal email.
Reuse of words must be kept to a minimum, credited, or quoted in the text, and all sources must be cited when they are used. The Annals of Communications in Mathematics uses the Similarity Check service provided by Crossref and powered by iThenticate to provide editors with a user-friendly tool to help detect plagiarism. A text similarity below 20% is acceptable by the journal.
The CrossRef Similarity Check uses iThenticate originality detection software to identify text similarities that may indicate plagiarism. It does this by comparing manuscripts with both a web repository and the CrossRef database.