Peer Review Process
Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology (JMST) publishes only scholarly manuscripts that have undergone a peer review process. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated through a structured editorial and review procedure to ensure academic quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
JMST applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. This policy is intended to ensure fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity in manuscript evaluation.
JMST Editorial and Publishing Process
To ensure academic quality, research integrity, and compliance with the journal’s publication standards, every manuscript submitted to the Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology (JMST) undergoes a structured double-blind peer review process. The following flowchart outlines the main stages of the editorial and peer review procedure, from initial submission to the final publication decision.
* Flowchart outlining the editorial and peer review procedure, from initial submission to the final publication decision.
Detailed Process Steps
(Click on each step to view the details)
1. Initial Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system in accordance with the journal’s author guidelines and manuscript template. All submissions must be original, not previously published, and not under consideration by another journal.
2. Administrative and Technical Screening
After submission, the editorial office conducts an administrative and technical screening to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal’s basic requirements. This includes checking the completeness of submission files, conformity with the journal template, author information, reference and citation format, language clarity, similarity results, and compliance with publication ethics and journal policies.
Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for technical correction before further processing.
3. Editorial Screening (Desk Evaluation)
Manuscripts that pass the administrative screening are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor to determine their suitability for external peer review. The evaluation considers the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, originality, scientific contribution, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, significance, and compliance with ethical standards.
Manuscripts may be desk rejected if they are outside the journal scope, lack originality, have major methodological weaknesses, or do not meet the minimum quality standards for peer review.
4. Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts considered suitable for review are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research background, and subject-area competence.
JMST applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential. This process is intended to ensure an independent, objective, and conflict-free evaluation.
5. Peer Review Evaluation
Reviewers are requested to evaluate the manuscript based on its relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, originality, scholarly contribution, adequacy of literature review, methodological rigor, appropriateness of analytical methods, clarity of data presentation, validity of findings, consistency of discussion and conclusions, practical or scientific relevance, writing quality, and compliance with ethical publication standards.
Reviewers provide constructive comments, recommendations, and suggestions to assist the editor in making an informed editorial decision.
6. Editorial Decision Categories
Based on the reviewers' evaluations, the editor will make one of the following decisions:
Accepted
The manuscript meets the journal’s scientific, methodological, ethical, and editorial standards. Only minor technical adjustments, such as formatting or proofreading, may be required before publication.
Accepted with Minor Revisions
The manuscript is scientifically sound and suitable for publication but requires minor improvements, such as clarification of arguments, language editing, reference correction, formatting adjustment, or minor improvement of tables and figures.
Major Revisions Required
The manuscript has potential for publication but requires substantial revision. This may include improvement of the literature review, methodology, data analysis, discussion, conclusion, structure, or presentation. The revised manuscript may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation.
Resubmission for Review
The manuscript addresses a topic relevant to the journal but requires extensive redevelopment before it can be reconsidered. A resubmitted manuscript may undergo a new round of peer review. An invitation to resubmit does not guarantee acceptance.
Rejected
The manuscript does not meet the journal’s aims and scope, scientific standards, methodological requirements, ethical standards, or publication quality. Rejected manuscripts are not eligible for publication in their current form.
7. Revision Stage
When revisions are requested, authors are required to submit a revised manuscript along with a response letter detailing how each reviewer’s comment has been addressed. Authors should ensure that all revisions are made carefully and clearly indicated, as inadequate revisions may affect the editorial decision.
8. Final Decision
After the revision stage, the editor evaluates the revised manuscript to determine whether it is suitable for acceptance, requires further revision, should be resubmitted for review, or should be rejected.
The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned editor based on reviewers’ recommendations, editorial judgment, and compliance with the journal’s standards.
9. Copyediting, Proofreading, and Publication
Once accepted, the manuscript proceeds to the production stage, which may include copyediting, language editing, layout and typesetting, author proofreading, and final publication.
At this stage, only editorial and technical improvements are permitted, and substantial changes to the scientific content are generally not allowed after final acceptance.
10. Important Policy Statement
JMST does not guarantee manuscript acceptance or a very short peer review process. All editorial decisions are based on independent peer review, editorial assessment, and compliance with the journal’s publication standards.
11. Galley Proof by Authors
Before publication, authors will receive the galley proof version of the manuscript for final checking and approval. Authors are responsible for carefully reviewing the proof to identify typographical errors, formatting issues, author information inaccuracies, or minor editorial corrections. At this stage, substantial changes to the scientific content, including methodology, data, results, or conclusions, are generally not permitted. Authors are expected to return the corrected galley proof within the specified timeframe to avoid delays in publication.