Peer Review

Annals of Mathematics and Computer Science uses single-anonymous peer review: referees know the identity of the authors, while referee identities are not disclosed to the authors. The journal follows the COPE Core Practices and its editorial decisions are independent of any commercial or institutional interest.

1. Initial editorial screening

Every submission is first assessed by an editor for relevance to the journal's Aims & Scope, originality, technical soundness and adherence to the Author Guidelines. All manuscripts are screened for text similarity, and for undisclosed use of generative AI, at this stage.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, most often papers with no stated computational relevance, or that are incomplete or improperly prepared, may be declined without external review (desk rejection). Authors are normally informed of a desk decision within two weeks.

2. External peer review

Manuscripts passing initial screening are sent to at least two independent referees with expertise in the subject of the paper. Referees are selected for their expertise and are asked to declare any conflict of interest, including recent collaboration, shared affiliation or supervision, before accepting an assignment.

Referees assess originality, correctness, clarity, the adequacy of the literature cited and the manuscript's computational relevance, and they provide a recommendation with supporting comments. Reviews are normally returned within four to six weeks.

Referees are asked to treat manuscripts as confidential documents: they may not share, distribute or use unpublished material, and they may not upload any part of a manuscript to generative AI tools, since doing so compromises confidentiality.

3. Editorial decision

Once the referees' evaluations have been received, the editor makes the final decision: accept, minor revision, major revision or reject. The decision rests with the editor, who weighs the referees' recommendations rather than treating them as votes; where reports conflict substantively, an additional referee may be consulted.

Authors are notified of the decision together with the referees' anonymized comments. Revised manuscripts must be accompanied by a point-by-point response to each comment, and are normally returned to the original referees. There is no fixed limit on revision rounds, though manuscripts that do not converge after two major revisions are usually declined.

Submissions authored by an editor or editorial board member are handled by another editor with no conflict of interest, and the authoring editor has no access to the review process or decision.

4. Final checks before publication

All accepted manuscripts undergo a final review for compliance with research ethics and publication standards, covering authorship and contributor statements, conflict-of-interest and funding disclosures, declared use of AI-assisted technologies, permissions for reused material and completeness of references. Accepted papers are then copyedited and typeset, and proofs are sent to the corresponding author for approval before publication.

5. Appeals and post-publication

Authors who consider a decision to have been reached in error may appeal by writing to the editor, explaining the grounds for the appeal and responding to the referees' specific points. Appeals are considered by an editor not involved in the original decision; the outcome of an appeal is final.

Concerns raised after publication are investigated in line with COPE guidance and may result in a correction, an expression of concern or a retraction, published and linked to the original article, which remains available.