Peer Review Process

At the European Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, we uphold the highest standards of academic excellence through our rigorous peer-review process. Manuscripts submitted to our journal undergo a meticulous evaluation by experts in the respective field. Our esteemed reviewers assess the scholarly merit, originality, and methodological rigor of each submission, providing constructive feedback to authors. This thorough and unbiased process ensures that only the most impactful and credible research contributes to the scientific discourse. We are committed to fostering transparency and maintaining the integrity of the scholarly publishing process.

Detailed Review Process

  • Initial Screening: Upon submission via our Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, manuscripts undergo an initial desk review by the Editors-in-Chief for alignment with journal scope, basic quality, originality, and author retraction history. Manuscripts not desk rejected are checked for plagiarism using Turnitin/iThenticate (integrated via Crossref Similarity Check). High similarity rate leads to rejection or revision request and resubmission.

  • Reviewer Suggestions from Authors: Authors are encouraged (but not required) to suggest at least 5 potential reviewers relevant to the manuscript during or after submission. While we are not obligated to use these suggestions, they are considered to enhance the reviewer pool.

  • Peer Review Type: The current peer review process follows a single-blind model. In this approach, reviewers are aware of the authors' identities (including names and affiliations), while authors remain unaware of the reviewers' identities.
  • Reviewer Selection and Evaluation: Each manuscript is assigned to at least 5 initial reviewer candidates from our international editorial board, author suggestions (if provided), or external experts (selected based on expertise and no conflicts of interest). Review invitations are sent, and we proceed with reports from at least 2-3 reviewers. Reviews are expected within 4-6 weeks.
  • Decision Making: The Editors-in-Chief make the final decision (accept, revise, major revision and resubmit, reject, etc.) based on the reviewer reports. If a decision cannot be reached, the Editors-in-Chief will consult the relevant editorial board member for additional input. If further clarification is needed after consultation, additional reviewers will be assigned to provide further reports.
  • Transparency and Appeals: The process follows COPE guidelines. Authors can appeal decisions with justification. All policies are publicly available on our website.

For more details, refer to our Publication Ethics Statement.