Peer Review Policy

1. Introduction

The Punjab University Journal of Mathematics (PUJM) uses the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform for managing the submission, review, and publication process. The peer review policy outlined below aims to maintain the quality and integrity of the journal by ensuring that only rigorously reviewed and relevant mathematical research is published.

2. Types of Peer Review

PUJM follows a double-blind peer review system in which both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. This system promotes fairness and reduces bias during the evaluation process. All submissions undergo rigorous review to ensure they meet academic standards and contribute to the field of mathematics.

3. Roles and Responsibilities

3.1 Editorial Team

The editorial team is responsible for overseeing the peer review process in OJS, selecting appropriate reviewers, ensuring that all necessary steps are followed, and communicating with authors and reviewers. Responsibilities of the editorial team include:

  • Ensuring that the journal adheres to its peer review policy.

  • Overseeing the review process and making final decisions based on reviewer feedback.

  • Communicating decisions to authors in a timely and professional manner.

3.2 Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for providing a fair, objective, and constructive evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers' responsibilities include:

  • Reviewing the manuscript's quality, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

  • Providing detailed and constructive feedback to help improve the manuscript.

  • Ensuring the confidentiality of the manuscript and not sharing it with unauthorized persons.

  • Submitting their reviews within the specified time frame.

3.3 Authors

Authors are responsible for submitting original and properly formatted manuscripts, adhering to the journal's guidelines. Responsibilities include:

  • Submitting only original works that are not under review or published elsewhere.

  • Responding to reviewer comments and revising the manuscript as needed.

  • Providing a clear, accurate, and comprehensive revision of the manuscript based on feedback.

  • Disclosing any potential conflicts of interest.

4. Peer Review Process in OJS

4.1 Submission

  • Authors submit their manuscripts through the OJS submission system, ensuring all required metadata, including title, abstract, keywords, and author information, is provided.

  • The editorial team checks the submission for adherence to the journal's submission guidelines.

4.2 Preliminary Review

  • The editorial team conducts an initial review to verify that the submission aligns with the journal’s scope and meets basic technical requirements (e.g., formatting, references).

  • Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are returned to the authors for revision before proceeding.

4.3 Reviewer Assignment

  • The editorial team uses OJS to select two or more independent, anonymous reviewers with expertise in the manuscript's subject area.

  • Reviewers are chosen based on their qualifications, expertise, and objectivity.

  • The selected reviewers are invited through the OJS platform to assess the manuscript.

4.4 Review

  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

    • Originality: Does the manuscript provide new insights or advance existing knowledge in mathematics?

    • Methodology: Are the methods and techniques employed robust and clearly explained?

    • Clarity: Is the manuscript clearly written and well-structured?

    • Significance: Does the research contribute meaningfully to the field of mathematics?

    • References: Are the references up-to-date, relevant, and correctly cited?

  • Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback to help the authors improve the manuscript.

4.5 Decision

  • Based on the reviews, the editorial team decides whether to accept, reject, or request revisions to the manuscript.

    • Accept: If the manuscript meets the journal's standards and reviewer recommendations.

    • Minor Revisions: If small changes are required before final acceptance.

    • Major Revisions: If significant changes are needed, but the manuscript has potential.

    • Reject: If the manuscript does not meet the necessary standards or falls outside the scope of the journal.

  • The decision is communicated to the authors through OJS, along with reviewer comments.

4.6 Revisions

  • Authors are required to revise the manuscript based on the feedback provided by the reviewers.

  • Authors submit the revised manuscript through OJS, along with a response to each reviewer comment, detailing the changes made.

  • The editorial team may send the revised manuscript back to the reviewers for further evaluation if necessary.

4.7 Final Decision

  • Once all revisions are complete, the editorial team makes the final decision.

  • Accepted manuscripts are queued for publication in an upcoming issue of PUJM.

5. Criteria for Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to consider the following criteria when evaluating manuscripts:

  • Relevance: Does the manuscript align with the journal's scope and focus on mathematics?

  • Originality and Novelty: Does the manuscript present new ideas, theories, or applications?

  • Clarity and Organization: Is the manuscript well-written, organized, and easy to understand?

  • Quality of Research: Are the methods and data analysis sound and valid?

  • Impact: Does the manuscript contribute to the field of mathematics and inspire further research?

6. Confidentiality

  • All reviewers must treat the manuscript and any related materials as confidential.

  • Manuscripts are not to be shared with third parties without permission.

  • Authors must also keep their work confidential during the peer review process.

7. Ethical Guidelines

7.1 Plagiarism

  • PUJM uses plagiarism detection software to ensure the originality of all submitted manuscripts.

  • Any form of plagiarism will result in rejection and may lead to further actions by the editorial board.

7.2 Conflict of Interest

  • Authors must declare any potential conflicts of interest.

  • Reviewers and editors must recuse themselves if they have any personal or professional conflicts of interest with the manuscript or its authors.

7.3 Data Integrity

  • Authors must ensure that all data presented in their manuscripts is accurate and properly cited.

  • Any instances of data fabrication or falsification will result in immediate rejection.

8. Reviewer Invitation and Acceptance

  • Reviewers are invited via the OJS system based on their expertise in the manuscript's topic.

  • Reviewers can accept or decline the invitation directly through OJS.

  • If a reviewer is unavailable, the editorial team will assign a new reviewer.

9. Appeals Process

If authors wish to appeal a decision, they may contact the editorial board through the OJS system. The board will review the appeal and, if necessary, involve additional reviewers for further evaluation.

10. Reviewer Recognition

Reviewers will be acknowledged for their contributions in the journal's editorial section. They may also receive certificates of appreciation or other forms of recognition.