Peer Review Process Policy

1. Peer Review Model

Under double-anonymous peer review:

• Reviewers do not receive identifying author information in the anonymized manuscript.
• Authors are not informed of reviewer identities.
• Editors responsible for manuscript handling may access identities as required for editorial administration.
• Both authors and reviewers are expected to respect the confidentiality of the review process.

Although reasonable measures are taken to protect anonymity, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed when identities may be inferred from publicly available preprints, citations, or research content.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team evaluates submissions for scope, originality, manuscript completeness, ethical compliance, and basic scientific quality. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be rejected without external review.

3. Reviewer Assignment

Research manuscripts should normally be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected based on competence, impartiality, and the absence of material conflicts of interest.

Reviewer recommendations supplied by authors, where permitted, do not determine reviewer selection. The editor independently verifies reviewer suitability and contact information.

4. Scientific Review Criteria

1. Originality: Significance and novelty of the mathematical or computational contribution.
2. Model formulation: Clarity of assumptions, variables, parameters, and governing equations.
3. Mathematical rigor: Correctness of proofs, analytical derivations, stability results, and theoretical conclusions.
4. Numerical methodology: Accuracy and suitability of computational algorithms.
5. Reproducibility: Adequacy of model specifications, initial conditions, parameter values, computational settings, and supporting data or code.
6. Validation: Appropriate calibration, sensitivity analysis, comparison, or other relevant evaluation.
7. Interpretation: Consistency between results, limitations, and conclusions.
8. Presentation: Clarity, organization, citations, and scholarly communication.

5. Author Anonymization

Authors should remove identifying names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and other direct identifiers from the manuscript file submitted for anonymous review. Author details should be supplied separately through the submission system.

Self-citations should be presented neutrally without unnecessarily revealing the authors' identities. File properties and supplementary materials should also be checked for identifying information where practicable.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments; maintain confidentiality; disclose competing interests; and avoid personal criticism or inappropriate use of unpublished material.

Confidential manuscripts must not be uploaded to unauthorized AI systems or external services. Reviewers should inform the editor if additional expertise is needed rather than sharing the manuscript without permission.

7. Editorial Decisions

After considering reviewer reports, the handling editor may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, further review, or rejection. The authorized editor makes the final decision based on scientific quality and ethical requirements.

Reviewer recommendations inform but do not replace editorial judgment. Acceptance is never guaranteed.

8. Revision and Reassessment

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts should provide a revised version and a point-by-point response to reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers or evaluated by the handling editor, depending on the extent of revision.

9. Appeals and Editorial Independence

Authors may submit evidence-based appeals concerning editorial decisions. Appeals should identify specific scientific or procedural concerns. Where conflicts exist, an independent editor should assess the appeal.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by an author's nationality, institutional affiliation, personal characteristics, or ability to pay publication charges.

10. Confidentiality and Publication Record

Reviewer identities and confidential reports are not disclosed to authors or the public unless an explicit and appropriate disclosure arrangement has been established. The journal should maintain records of editorial decisions and reviewer assessments in accordance with its operational and data-protection procedures.