Reviewing process in IJAM

The reviewing in IJAM is basically the traditional method of SINGLE BLIND REVIEW, where the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author, but the author is known to reviewers. The reviewers are invited to evaluate the paper and fill in the REVIEW FORM. Final conclusions can be: - Accept as is; - Acceptable after minor revisions; - Major revision necessary; - Reject.

The journal's reviewing policy consists in the following steps:

  1. The Editor-in-Chief, upon receipt of a submission, pre-evaluate its quality and merits and decide if suitable to consider for IJAM or to decline it. If it is decided to be considered, the paper is registered. In all cases the author is informed (with short arguments). If registered for consideration, then:
  2. The Editor-in-Chief assigns two independent reviewers, usually one is member of editorial board on a close speciality, and the second can be external expert on the topic.
  3. Upon receipts of the two reports, if both of them are positive or recommend minor revisions, the author is contacted and asked to follow the reviewers' comments (if any) plus editor's suggestions for the necessary technical improvements (if necessary).
  4. Upon receipt of the author's revision, the Editor-in-Chief checks if the reviewers' suggestions are satisfactory addressed AND if the technical form is OK with the journal's format and style. In case of hesitation for mathematical contents, the revision is sent again also to reviewers for approval.
  5. If one of the conditions is not satisfied: 1) reviewers' suggestions fulfilled; 2) technical form to be strictly done according to IJAM template and typesetting standards are good, the paper is returned to author(s) to be revised once again (but as a last chance. Second round of revisions is avoided).
  6. If the revision is done OK for both above conditions, the paper is accepted, the author is asked to sign and return the COPYRIGHT FORM and to arrange APC.
  7. In case a major revision is asked by reviewer(s), the author is asked first to revise essentially the mathematical contents, and only then to proceed to final technical editing, and to next steps (if accepted after reviewers' check).
  8. In case of negative reports (or at least one strongly negative), the paper is rejected; same also if the author is finally not able to provide enough good technical form of the paper according to IJAM standards.
  9. In case of doubts (one negative, one positive reports/ two doubtful reports/ or Editor's doubts in reviewers' recommendations), a third reviewer can be assigned – either among editorial board (preferably) or external expert, and procedure continues as at above steps.
  10. Alternatively, the authors can submit papers directly to members of Editorial Board close to the topic and ask their opinion if the paper sounds suitable to be considered in IJAM. If so, the editors should judge themselves serving as one of reviewers and assign also a second one on their choice. Finally, the reports and decision are provided to the Editor-in-Chief together with the submitted/ revised paper, to be proceeded as at above steps: check of technicality, acceptance, etc. Editors can also INVITE submissions to IJAM with the condition they check their quality and provide positive reviewers reports.