Editorial and peer review process
The journal uses single-anonymized peer review.
When a manuscript is submitted to the journal, it is assigned to the Editor-in-Chief, who performs initial screening. Manuscripts that do not fit the journal’s scope or are not deemed suitable for publication are rejected without review. The remaining manuscripts are assigned to a handling Editor who assigns two reviewers to assess each manuscript. The deadline for submission of the reviewers’ reports varies by article type.
Upon receipt of the two reviewers’ reports, the Editor makes the first decision on the manuscript. If the decision is to request revision of the manuscript, authors have 2 months to resubmit their revised manuscript. Revised manuscripts submitted after this deadline may be treated as new submissions. The Editor may send revised manuscripts to peer reviewers for their feedback or may use his or her own judgement to assess how closely the authors have followed the Editor’s and the reviewers’ comments on the original manuscript.
The Editor then makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief on the manuscript’s suitability for publication. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for making the final decision on each manuscript.
In cases where the Editor-in-Chief is an author on a manuscript submitted to the journal, a member of the Editorial Board is responsible for making the final decision on the manuscript’s suitability for publication in the journal.
Reviewer selection, timing and suggestions
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the field, reputation, recommendation by others, and/or previous experience as peer reviewers for the journal.
Reviewers are asked to submit their first review within four weeks of accepting the invitation to review. Reviewers who anticipate any delays should inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible.
When submitting a manuscript to the journal, authors may suggest reviewers that they would like included in or excluded from the peer review process. The Editor may consider these suggestions but is under no obligation to follow them. The selection, invitation and assignment of peer reviewers is at the Editor’s sole discretion.
Reviewer reports
Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments. It is the journal’s policy to transmit reviewers’ comments to the authors in their original form. However, the journal reserves the right to edit reviewers’ comments, without consulting the reviewers, if they contain offensive language, personal criticism, or confidential information.
Acceptance criteria
If a manuscript satisfies the journal’s requirements and represents a significant contribution to the published literature, the Editor may recommend acceptance for publication in the journal.
Articles in the journal must be:
- within the subject area of the journal’s scope
- novel and original
- descriptions of technically rigorous research
- of high interest to the journal’s audience
- important additions to the field.
If a manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements for acceptance or revision, the Editor may recommend rejection.
Editorial independence
The FORMATH Research Society has granted the journal’s Editorial Board complete and sole responsibility for all editorial decisions and will not become involved in editorial decisions, except in cases of a fundamental breakdown of process.
Editorial decisions are based only on a manuscript’s scientific merit and are kept completely separate from the journal’s other interests.
Confidentiality in peer review
The journal maintains the confidentiality of all unpublished manuscripts. Editors and reviewers will not:
- disclose a reviewer’s identity unless the reviewer makes a reasonable request for such disclosure
- discuss the manuscript or its contents with anyone not directly involved with the manuscript or its peer review
- use any data or information from the manuscript in their own work or publications
- use information obtained from the peer review process to provide an advantage to themselves or anyone else, or to disadvantage any individual or organization
- Share or upload the content of the manuscript with any AI tool or public platform.
In addition, reviewers will not reveal their identity to any of the authors of the manuscript or involve anyone else in the review (for example, a post-doc or PhD student) without first receiving permission from the Editor.
Editor and reviewer conflicts of interest in peer review
A conflict of interest exists when there are actual, perceived or potential circumstances that could influence an editor or reviewer’s ability to act impartially when assessing a manuscript. Such circumstances might include having a personal or professional relationship with an author, working on the same topic or in direct competition with an author, having a financial stake in the work or its publication, or having seen previous versions of the manuscript.
Reviewers and members of the journal’s Editorial Board undertake to declare any conflicts of interest when handling manuscripts. An editor or reviewer who declares a conflict of interest is unassigned from the manuscript in question and is replaced by a new editor or reviewer.
Editors try to avoid conflicts of interest when inviting reviewers, but it is not always possible to identify potential bias.
Editors as authors in the journal
Any member of the journal’s Editorial Board, including the Editor-in-Chief who is an author on a submitted manuscript is excluded from the peer review process. Within the journal’s online manuscript submission and tracking system, they will be able to see their manuscript as an author but not as an editor, thereby maintaining the confidentiality of peer review.
A manuscript authored by an editor of the journal is subject to the same high standards of peer review and editorial decision making as any manuscript considered by the journal.
Complaints and appeals
Complaints and appeals are handled in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE):
Authors who wish to appeal the rejection of their manuscript can do so by emailing the Editorial Office of FORMATH with a reference to the manuscript ID number. Authors should explain in detail why they believe their manuscript should be reconsidered. If it is determined that, it should be reconsidered, the author may be asked to submit it as a new manuscript. The manuscript will then receive a new identification number and submission date and undergo a review, just like a new submission. Appeals are generally only considered if the authors provide detailed evidence of a misunderstanding or mistake by a reviewer or editor.
Authors, reviewers, and readers may register complaints and or concerns about a range of issues including (but not limited to): 1) falsification, 2) fabrication, 3) plagiarism, 4) duplicate publication, 5) authorship disputes, 6) conflicts of interest, 7) bias or inappropriate competitive acts, 8) copyright issues, 9) stolen data, 10) defamation, and 11) legal problems. If individuals or institutions wish to lodge a complaint, they can do so by sending a letter to the Editor-in-Chief of FORMATH. Appropriate and empirical detail must be provided on the background, context, and specific circumstances to support the complaint or appeal. The Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board, or Editorial Office are responsible for considering the issues; decisions made are final.
Responding to potential ethical breaches
All allegations of scientific misconduct will be referred to the Editor-in-Chief, who will review the circumstances in consultation with the Editorial Board. Initial fact-finding may include a request to all involved parties to state their case, and explain the circumstances in writing. With respect to research misconduct around data (data fabrication and falsification), methods or technical issues, and falsified text (such as purposeful hiding of research outcomes and plagiarism), the Editor-in-Chief may consult with experts who are blinded to the identity of the individuals involved. Or, if the allegation is against an editor, consult with an external editorial expert. The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board may arrive at a conclusion as to whether there is enough evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe there is a possibility of misconduct.
When allegations concern the authors, the peer review and publication process for the manuscript in question shall be halted, while the appropriate investigation is undertaken. Investigations may be continued even where authors choose to withdraw the manuscript. In cases of allegations against reviewers or editors, they will be recused and replaced, and an investigation undertaken.
The integrity of the research may also be compromised by inappropriate methodology that could lead to retraction. See COPE flowcharts for further guidance on scientific misconduct and expressions of concern.
Errata and retractions*
If authors notice an error in the published manuscript, several courses of action are available. A corrigendum shall be published when the authors have made an error in the manuscript. An erratum shall be published when the publishing processes have made an error in the article. A post-publication change to the original article can only be made where the error affects the discoverability, visibility and citability of the article. Example includes author names, titles and abstracts, or changes to affiliations, footnotes and/or acknowledgments in order to meet the requirements of a funding body, or those related to legal issues.
If post-publication changes are made, the errata of the article will be published online.
In cases where serious errors are identified, a retraction or expression of concern may be published. A retraction shall be published as a way to correct the scientific record by bringing fundamental flaws/errors in the manuscript to the attention of the readership. They are usually reserved for cases where there is clear evidence of unreliable findings due to misconduct or honest error. An expression of concern shall be issued when concerns about publications have not been conclusively proven but are sufficiently serious to warrant warning potential readers.
The decision to publish Errata or Retractions is made at the sole discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.