Guidelines for Reviewers

The Journal of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (JMAI) values the critical role reviewers play in ensuring the quality and integrity of the research published. To assist reviewers in their role, we have outlined the following guidelines:

  1. Confidentiality:
    Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. The contents of the manuscript should not be shared or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor. Information gained during the review process should not be used for personal advantage.

  2. Objectivity:
    Reviews should be based on the intellectual content of the manuscript. Avoid personal criticism of the author(s). Provide constructive feedback that helps the authors improve their work.

  3. Expertise:
    Reviewers should only accept manuscripts in areas where they have the necessary expertise. If a reviewer feels they cannot provide a fair evaluation due to lack of knowledge or time constraints, they should decline the review invitation.

  4. Timeliness:
    Reviewers should complete their reviews within the requested timeframe. If delays are unavoidable, the reviewer should notify the editor as soon as possible.

  5. Conflict of Interest:
    Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that might affect their impartiality, such as personal relationships with the authors or financial interests related to the manuscript's topic. If there is a conflict, the reviewer should decline the review.

  6. Ethical Considerations:
    Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript for ethical issues such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical research practices. If any such issues are identified, they should be reported to the editor.

  7. Constructive Feedback:
    Reviewers should provide specific and constructive feedback that will help the authors improve their manuscript. Comments should focus on the manuscript’s quality, clarity, originality, and relevance to the field.

  8. Recommendation:
    Based on the review, the reviewer will recommend one of the following outcomes:

      • Accept Submission: This status indicates that the submission meets all the necessary criteria for publication, including quality, relevance, and clarity. The manuscript is ready for final publication without further revisions.
      • Revisions Required: This status means that the submission is generally acceptable but needs some changes or improvements. The reviewer has suggested specific revisions to enhance the quality, and the author is expected to address these before resubmitting.
      • Resubmit for Review: This status suggests that the manuscript needs significant revisions. After the author makes the necessary changes, the paper will be sent back to the reviewer for further evaluation. This is often used when major issues were identified that need to be addressed before final acceptance.
      • Resubmit elsewhere: This status is used when the submission is not suitable for the current journal, but the content may be appropriate for another publication. It suggests that the author consider submitting the manuscript to a different journal.
      • Decline Submission: This status indicates that the submission does not meet the journal's standards or scope, and the paper is not suitable for publication. The reviewer may provide feedback on why the submission was rejected.
    • Provide clear reasons to justify your recommendation