Peer Review Process
SEMPOA applies a Double-Blind Peer Review model.
- Reviewers are informed of the names and affiliations of the authors.
- Authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers.
- Reviewer reports are treated as confidential editorial documents.
- Each manuscript that proceeds to external peer review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript.
Reviewers should not have conflicts of interest that could reasonably compromise the independence or objectivity of their evaluation.
The editorial office checks whether the manuscript is complete, written according to the journal's requirements, and contains the necessary author, affiliation, ethical, funding, conflict-of-interest, and supporting information.
The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor evaluates the manuscript for compatibility with the journal's Focus and Scope, originality, scholarly relevance, basic methodological or mathematical quality, readability, and compliance with journal policies.
The manuscript may be screened for similarity, reference integrity, potential plagiarism, inappropriate text reuse, or other publication integrity concerns. Automated screening tools support but do not replace human editorial assessment.
Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers selected according to their subject expertise, publication or research background, independence, availability, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest.
Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript and provide comments, recommendations, and constructive suggestions to the authors and editors.
When revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.
Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the handling editor and may be returned to the original reviewers when additional expert assessment is required.
The final decision is made by the responsible editor based on the manuscript's scholarly quality, reviewer reports, author responses, revisions, ethical compliance, and relevance to SEMPOA. Reviewers provide recommendations; they do not make the final publication decision.
Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts according to criteria appropriate to Mathematics or Mathematics Education, including:
- Originality and novelty of the contribution;
- Relevance to the Focus and Scope of SEMPOA;
- Clarity and significance of the research problem;
- Soundness of mathematical arguments, proofs, models, or algorithms;
- Appropriateness and transparency of research methodology;
- Validity and reliability of empirical analysis where applicable;
- Accuracy and clarity of results;
- Quality of the discussion and interpretation;
- Appropriate engagement with relevant scholarly literature;
- Validity and relevance of references and citations;
- Quality of tables, figures, equations, and mathematical notation;
- Ethical compliance where human participants or research data are involved;
- Overall scholarly contribution to Mathematics or Mathematics Education.
Following editorial and peer-review assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:
- Accept Submission
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Resubmit for Review
- Decline Submission
A request for revision does not constitute a guarantee of eventual acceptance. Revised manuscripts must adequately address the issues identified during editorial and peer review.
When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the handling editor evaluates the reasoning provided in the reports. The editor may request clarification, obtain an additional independent review, or consult another qualified editorial board member before reaching a decision.
Reviewers must provide objective and independent evaluations and should decline review invitations when a personal, professional, financial, institutional, collaborative, or other relationship could reasonably affect their impartiality.
Editors should avoid assigning reviewers when a significant conflict of interest is known or reasonably apparent.
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not distribute, reproduce, publicly discuss, or use unpublished information, ideas, data, mathematical results, or other manuscript content for personal advantage or unrelated research.
Manuscripts submitted by an Editor-in-Chief, editor, editorial board member, reviewer, or other individual closely associated with the journal are subject to the same editorial standards and external peer-review requirements as other submissions. The author concerned must not participate in reviewer selection, manuscript assessment, or the final editorial decision for their own submission.
If SEMPOA publishes a special issue, manuscripts submitted to that issue are subject to the same scholarly, ethical, editorial screening, and independent peer-review requirements as regular submissions. The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the scholarly integrity of all journal content.
SEMPOA seeks to conduct editorial assessment and peer review efficiently while maintaining appropriate scholarly standards.
The initial peer-review cycle is generally targeted for completion within approximately 2–4 weeks. The actual review period may vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the extent of required revision, and the number of review rounds.
Following final acceptance, manuscripts normally proceed to copyediting, layout, proofreading, metadata preparation, and publication processing.
These timeframes are indicative rather than guaranteed. Scholarly and ethical evaluation takes priority over publication speed.
Submission to SEMPOA does not guarantee acceptance or publication.
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, mathematical or methodological rigor, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal's scope, independent peer-review reports, and the adequacy of author revisions.
