Peer Review Policy

The Electronic Journal of Mathematical Modelling in Engineering and Digital Sciences (EJMMEDS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous and fair peer review process. All submitted manuscripts undergo peer review to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and scientific validity of published research.

Review Model

EJMMEDS follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. This approach helps ensure impartial evaluation and minimizes potential bias.

Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is reviewed by the editorial team to determine:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope and aims.
  • Compliance with submission guidelines.
  • Originality and academic quality.
  • Basic methodological and ethical standards.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external review.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and significance of the research.
  • Scientific and technical quality.
  • Methodological soundness.
  • Clarity of presentation and organization.
  • Relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Quality and appropriateness of references.

Review Decisions

Based on reviewers’ recommendations, the editorial team may reach one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revisions.
  • Accept with minor revisions.
  • Request major revisions.
  • Reject the manuscript.

Authors may be required to revise their manuscripts and respond to reviewers’ comments before a final decision is made.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not disclose, discuss, or use unpublished information contained in submitted manuscripts for personal or professional advantage.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could affect their objectivity. Individuals with conflicts of interest will not participate in the review or decision-making process for the manuscript concerned.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations.
  • Identify relevant published work not cited by the authors.
  • Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or ethical concerns.
  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based solely on the academic merit, originality, relevance, and quality of the manuscript. Decisions are not influenced by the authors’ nationality, ethnicity, gender, institutional affiliation, or personal beliefs.

Appeals

Authors who believe a decision was made in error may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals will be reviewed carefully, and the final decision of the editorial board shall be considered binding.

Publication Ethics

The peer review process is conducted in accordance with recognized international standards of publication ethics, integrity, transparency, and academic responsibility.