Guidelines for Reviewers

The journal, Mathematical Structures and Computational Modeling (MSCM) understands that peer reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the Journal’s academic standards and integrity. Reviewers are expected to provide an independent, balanced, constructive, and timely assessment of the manuscript. Their primary responsibility is to assist the editor in evaluating the scholarly quality of the submission and to provide authors with useful feedback that can improve the work. Below guidelines are constructed to help reviewers at different stages of their review.

Before Accepting a Review

Reviewers should accept an assignment only when the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and they have sufficient time to complete the review properly. Before accepting, reviewers should consider whether they have any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. They should also consider whether their relationship with the authors, institution, research group, or subject matter could reasonably affect their impartiality. Where a conflict exists, the invitation should be declined and the editor informed where appropriate.

Confidentiality

The manuscript and all information obtained during the review must be treated as confidential. Reviewers should not share the manuscript, reviewer reports, supplementary materials, or correspondence with colleagues or other individuals without prior permission from the editor. Unpublished findings, methods, data, or ideas contained in the manuscript must not be used for personal research or professional advantage. Reviewers should also avoid contacting authors directly about the manuscript unless specifically authorized by the Journal.

General Assessment

Reviewers should first consider whether the manuscript is relevant to Mathematical Structures and Computational Modeling (MSCM) and makes a meaningful scholarly contribution. The assessment should consider the originality and significance of the research question, the adequacy of the literature review, the clarity of the objectives or hypotheses, the appropriateness and rigor of the methodology, the validity of the statistical or analytical approach, the accuracy and completeness of the results, and whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the evidence.

Methodology and Statistical Analysis

Reviewers should assess whether the study design is appropriate for the research question and whether the methods are described in sufficient detail to permit evaluation and, where appropriate, replication. For quantitative studies, reviewers should consider whether statistical methods are suitable for the data and study design, whether assumptions have been addressed, whether sample size or power considerations are appropriate, and whether estimates are reported with sufficient measures of uncertainty. Reviewers should distinguish between statistical significance and practical or clinical significance and should identify inappropriate causal interpretations or overstatement of findings.

Results and Interpretation

Reviewers should determine whether the results are presented clearly and consistently with the stated methods. Tables and figures should accurately represent the findings without unnecessary duplication. Statistical results should be reported consistently, and important estimates should be accompanied by appropriate measures of precision where applicable. Conclusions should follow logically from the findings and should acknowledge important limitations. Reviewers should identify unsupported claims, selective interpretation, excessive generalization, or conclusions that extend beyond the evidence.

Ethical and Publication Considerations

Reviewers should remain alert to possible ethical or publication concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, questionable authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate data or image manipulation, inadequate ethical approval, and other indications of research misconduct. Reviewers should not make accusations of misconduct without reasonable grounds. Concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editor, who will determine whether further investigation is required.

Constructive Reviewer Comments

Reviewer reports should be clear, specific, professional, and constructive. Comments should explain the basis for criticisms and, where possible, provide practical suggestions for improvement. Reviewers should distinguish major concerns that affect the validity or interpretation of the research from minor issues involving presentation, terminology, grammar, or formatting. Personal criticism, offensive language, discriminatory comments, and unsupported judgments should be avoided.

Recommendations to the Editor

Reviewers should provide a recommendation based on their overall assessment of the manuscript, such as accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject, where these options are provided by the Journal. The recommendation should be consistent with the substantive comments in the review. Reviewers should not recommend rejection solely because a manuscript does not support their preferred hypothesis or use their preferred methodology when the authors’ approach is scientifically justified.

The reviewer’s recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor.

Reviewer Use of References

Reviewers may recommend relevant literature when it is genuinely necessary to strengthen the manuscript, correct an omission, or provide important context. Reviewers should not require authors to cite the reviewer’s own publications or particular journals without a legitimate scholarly reason. Citation recommendations should be relevant, proportionate, and directly related to the manuscript.

Use of AI-Assisted Tools

Confidential manuscript content should not be entered into publicly accessible AI platforms. AI-assisted tools must not replace independent reviewer judgment, and reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy and confidentiality of their reports. AI systems must not be identified as reviewers or credited with the peer-review assessment.

Completing the Review

Before submitting a review, reviewers should ensure that their comments are complete, consistent, and professionally written. They should verify that major concerns have been clearly identified and that the recommendation to the editor is supported by the review. Reviewers should submit their report within the agreed timeframe or inform the editor promptly if additional time is required. The Journal values timely, thoughtful, and constructive reviews as an essential contribution to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing.