Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

InPrime: Indonesian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure an objective, fair, and academically rigorous evaluation of all submitted manuscripts. In this process, the identities of the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review stage.

Each manuscript submitted to InPrime undergoes a multi-stage review process designed to assess its originality, mathematical rigor, clarity of presentation, relevance to the journal’s scope, and scholarly contribution to the field of pure and applied mathematics.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the editorial team to determine whether they are suitable for external peer review. At this stage, the editors assess:

  • the relevance of the manuscript to the scope of the journal;
  • the originality and potential scholarly contribution of the work;
  • the overall structure, academic quality, and clarity of presentation;
  • compliance with the journal’s author guidelines; and
  • possible ethical concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, or authorship problems.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s minimum academic, technical, or ethical standards may be rejected without being sent to external reviewers.

2. Anonymization for Double-Blind Review

Before the manuscript is sent to reviewers, the editorial office ensures that all author-identifying information is removed from the review file. Authors are also expected to prepare their manuscripts in a way that does not reveal their identity in the main text, acknowledgments, file properties, or supplementary materials intended for review.

This double-blind procedure is intended to reduce bias and to promote impartial evaluation based solely on the academic merit of the submission.

3. External Review by Independent Experts

Each manuscript that passes the initial screening is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript’s subject area. When necessary, the editor may assign more than two reviewers, especially in cases where:

  • the topic is highly specialized or interdisciplinary;
  • the reviewer reports differ substantially;
  • additional expert judgment is needed before a final decision can be made; or
  • the manuscript requires further evaluation after revision.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of scholarly expertise, relevance to the submitted topic, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript on the basis of several academic criteria, including but not limited to:

  • originality and novelty of the contribution;
  • mathematical correctness, logical consistency, and rigor of proofs or arguments;
  • clarity and precision of definitions, notation, models, methods, algorithms, or theorems;
  • relevance and adequacy of references to previous studies;
  • quality of analysis, computation, simulation, or application where relevant;
  • clarity of writing, organization, and presentation; and
  • overall significance of the manuscript for the development of pure and applied mathematics.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Based on their review, reviewers may recommend one of the following editorial outcomes:

  • Accept;
  • Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision;
  • Reject.

The recommendations of reviewers are taken seriously as an essential part of the editorial process. However, the final decision on publication remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned handling editor.

6. Editorial Decision

After receiving the reviewer reports, the editorial team evaluates the recommendations and communicates the decision to the corresponding author. The editorial decision may be based on the reports of two or more reviewers, and where necessary, the editor may request an additional review before reaching a final conclusion.

If the reports differ significantly, the editor may:

  • consult another reviewer;
  • request clarification from the reviewers; or
  • make a reasoned editorial judgment based on the strength of the reports and the journal’s standards.

7. Revision and Re-Review

If revision is requested, authors must submit a revised version of the manuscript together with a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment, or it may be evaluated directly by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

Substantial revisions may undergo another round of peer review before a final editorial decision is made.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, copy, or use any part of the manuscript for personal, professional, or competitive advantage. Likewise, reviewer identities and reports are handled confidentially within the editorial process.

9. Objectivity and Professional Conduct

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and academically grounded evaluations. Criticism should be expressed clearly, respectfully, and with reference to the scholarly content of the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is not acceptable.

Reviewers are also encouraged to identify relevant published work not cited by the authors and to alert the editor if they suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, serious mathematical error, or other ethical concerns.

10. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline an invitation to review if they have any conflict of interest that may affect their impartiality. This includes financial interests, institutional relationships, recent collaboration with the authors, direct academic competition, or any other connection that may compromise objective judgment.

Editors who have a conflict of interest with a submission must not be involved in the editorial handling of that manuscript.

11. Final Decision

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated editor on the basis of the reviewers’ reports, the quality of the revised manuscript where applicable, and the editorial standards of the journal.

Through this double-blind peer review process, involving a minimum of two independent reviewers, InPrime seeks to maintain fairness, scholarly integrity, and the publication of high-quality research in pure and applied mathematics.