Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Applied Mathematics, Informatics and Digital Art follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest standards of scientific quality, originality, and academic integrity.

Type of Review

The journal uses a double-blind peer review system, where:

  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
  • Reviewers do not know the identity of authors

This ensures impartiality, fairness, and academic objectivity in the evaluation process.

Review Stages

The peer review process consists of the following stages:

  1. Initial Editorial Screening
    • Scope verification
    • Plagiarism check
    • Formatting compliance review
  2. Reviewer Assignment
    • At least two independent experts are assigned
    • Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise
  3. Peer Review Evaluation
    • Detailed technical and scientific assessment
    • Reviewer comments and recommendations are collected
  4. Editorial Decision
    • Based on reviewer reports and editorial judgment
    • Revision requests may be issued to authors
  5. Final Decision
    • Acceptance, revision, or rejection

Evaluation Criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and novelty of contribution
  • Technical quality and correctness of methodology
  • Relevance to ICT, applied mathematics, or digital art domains
  • Clarity of presentation and structure
  • Quality of experiments, simulations, or implementation
  • Strength and relevance of literature review
  • Validity and interpretation of results
  • Ethical compliance and academic integrity

Decision Categories

Based on reviewer recommendations, manuscripts may receive one of the following decisions:

  • Accept – Manuscript is accepted without revision or with minor editorial corrections
  • Minor Revision – Small changes required; no major scientific issues
  • Major Revision – Significant improvements required before reconsideration
  • Reject – Manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form

Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers.

Review Timeline

The journal aims to ensure efficient and timely publication. The average review timeline is:

  • Initial screening: 3–10 days
  • Peer review process: 2–5 weeks
  • Final editorial decision: 1–2 weeks after reviews

Average total review time: approximately 3–6 weeks

Fast-track processing may be applied for special issues or invited papers.

Reviewer Ethics and Confidentiality

All reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain strict confidentiality of submitted manuscripts
  • Provide objective, constructive, and unbiased feedback
  • Declare any conflicts of interest before accepting a review
  • Avoid using manuscript content for personal research advantage

Editorial Responsibility

Final publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewer recommendations and editorial assessment. The editorial board ensures fairness, transparency, and adherence to international publishing standards (COPE guidelines).