The Journal of Algebra Combinatorics Discrete Structures and Applications applies a rigorous editorial screening and single-blind peer-review process to all scholarly manuscripts submitted for publication. The purpose of peer review is to assess the originality, correctness, relevance, clarity, mathematical rigor, and scholarly contribution of each manuscript within the journal’s aims and scope. All manuscripts are evaluated impartially and in accordance with the journal’s editorial and publication ethics policies.

Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or one of the three Associate Editors authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for its relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, originality, scholarly contribution, mathematical rigor, clarity of presentation, completeness of the required information, and compliance with the journal’s ethical and submission requirements.

Before undertaking an editorial assignment, the responsible editor must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest relating to the manuscript, its authors, or the research presented. An editor with a relevant conflict of interest must not participate in the affected editorial process. Any manuscript affected by an editorial conflict of interest must be assigned to an appropriately qualified and independent editor in accordance with the procedures set out in the Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review section. The editor responsible for the manuscript must have the necessary authority for the assigned responsibilities, and any final decision must be made by an authorized editor who is free from relevant conflicts of interest.

Following the initial screening, manuscripts considered suitable for external peer review are assigned to a Section Editor with appropriate subject expertise. Before accepting the assignment, the Section Editor must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. If a relevant conflict exists, the Section Editor must decline the assignment, and the manuscript shall be reassigned to another suitably qualified and independent Section Editor.

An editor who identifies a relevant conflict of interest after accepting an assignment must disclose it promptly and withdraw from further handling of the manuscript. The manuscript shall be reassigned to an appropriately qualified, independent editor with the necessary authority for the relevant responsibilities. The conflicted editor must not participate in reviewer selection, evaluation of reviewer reports, editorial deliberations, recommendations, or decisions concerning that manuscript.

Conflict-of-interest declarations, assignment acceptances or refusals, reassignments, and relevant authorizations shall be documented in the journal’s editorial management system.

Manuscripts may be rejected during initial editorial screening without external peer review if they fall outside the journal’s scope, lack sufficient scholarly contribution, fail to meet basic standards of mathematical rigor, raise serious ethical concerns, or do not comply with the journal’s submission requirements.

Peer Review Model

The journal uses a single-blind peer-review process. Reviewers are informed of the authors’ identities, while authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to a Section Editor with appropriate subject expertise. The Section Editor is responsible for selecting qualified external reviewers, managing the peer-review process, assessing the reviewer reports, and submitting an editorial recommendation to the authorized decision-maker. Before accepting the assignment, the Section Editor must disclose any relevant conflict of interest.

Reviewers must be independent of the journal’s Editorial Board and must have appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. They are selected on the basis of their academic expertise, relevant publication record, independence, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

As a journal-specific quality standard, manuscripts undergoing external peer review require at least two independent reviewer reports from reviewers outside the Editorial Board before an ordinary final decision on scholarly merit is made. Additional reports may be requested when the existing reports are conflicting, incomplete, inconclusive, or insufficient to support a well-founded decision.

This two-report standard does not prevent the journal from rejecting a manuscript during initial editorial screening without external review. Nor does it require the journal to delay necessary action where a serious research or publication ethics concern requires the editorial process to be suspended or action to be taken under the journal’s applicable ethics policies. Such action must be based on documented reasons and must not be used to circumvent peer review for an ordinary assessment of scholarly merit.

Peer Review Timelines, Reviewer Assignment and Transparency

In accordance with international transparency standards, the journal states the following operational procedures governing peer review:

• Expected Turnaround and Decision Timelines: Initial editorial screening is normally completed within 7 to 14 days of submission. Reviewers who accept an invitation are normally expected to submit their peer-review report within 4 to 6 weeks, and the typical average time from submission to a first editorial decision for manuscripts sent to external review is approximately 6 to 8 weeks. All published articles display the exact dates of submission (Received), acceptance (Accepted), and publication (Published). If unexpected delays occur during the review process, the editorial office informs the authors of the reason for the delay, and authors retain the right to withdraw their manuscript prior to formal publication if they wish.
• Reviewer Assignment and Automated Tools: External reviewers are identified, evaluated, and assigned directly by the handling Section Editor on the basis of verified subject-matter expertise and independence. The journal does not use automated or artificial intelligence (AI) systems to automatically invite or assign peer reviewers without direct scholarly evaluation by the handling editor.
• Author-Recommended Reviewers: Authors are not required to suggest reviewers during submission. If authors optionally suggest potential reviewers or request the exclusion of specific individuals due to conflicts of interest, such suggestions are treated solely as non-binding input to broaden perspective; the handling Section Editor independently verifies any suggested reviewer's qualifications and impartiality and is under no obligation to invite them.
• Supplementary Material and Unpublished Review Reports: Where supplementary files (such as datasets, source code, or extended mathematical computations) are submitted in support of a manuscript, they are made available to the external reviewers for evaluation alongside the main manuscript. Under the journal's single-blind peer-review policy, peer-review reports, reviewer identities, editorial comments, and author response letters remain strictly confidential and are not published alongside the final article.
• Non-Peer-Reviewed Content and Exceptions: Original research articles and survey/review papers always undergo full external peer review as described above. Formal editorial notices (such as editorials, errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, or retraction notices) are evaluated and approved by the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors without external peer review, and are clearly labeled as editorial notices upon publication. If any article's peer review is an exception to the usual policy, the published article explicitly states the review procedure it received.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, constructively, fairly, and confidentially. Their reports should address the originality, correctness, mathematical rigor, significance, clarity, organization, adequacy of references, and suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal.

Reviewers must base their assessments on the scholarly content of the manuscript and must not discriminate against authors on the basis of personal characteristics or other considerations unrelated to the scientific evaluation of the work.

Reviewers should accept invitations only when they have the necessary expertise and can complete the assessment within the agreed timeframe. They must decline an invitation if they lack the necessary expertise, cannot complete the review within a reasonable period, or have an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that may compromise their impartiality.

Reviewers must inform the editorial office promptly if circumstances prevent them from meeting the agreed deadline or if an extension is required. They must not intentionally delay the peer-review process.

Reviewer reports must be professional, evidence-based, specific, and constructive. Reviewers should provide clear reasoning and supporting evidence for their assessments, including appropriate references where necessary. They must avoid personal or derogatory comments, unsupported allegations, and requests for unnecessary additional work. Any recommendation submitted to the editor must be consistent with the assessment provided in the review report.

Requests to cite a reviewer’s own work or the work of others must be justified by genuine scholarly relevance and must not be intended primarily to increase citation counts or promote particular individuals.

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and all associated materials as confidential. They must not use unpublished material from a manuscript under review for personal advantage or for purposes unrelated to the evaluation. They must not share, distribute, or disclose such material except where disclosure is authorized by the journal or required by applicable law or an appropriate research integrity procedure.

Reviewers must comply with the journal’s policy on artificial intelligence and research integrity. They must not use generative artificial intelligence or artificial intelligence-assisted technologies to generate, draft, or substantially formulate peer-review reports, recommendations, evaluations, or other substantive assessments of submitted manuscripts.

Limited use of artificial intelligence-assisted tools for routine language editing or administrative purposes is permitted only where confidentiality is maintained, no unpublished manuscript content or other confidential information is disclosed to an artificial intelligence system, and the reviewer’s own scholarly judgment and responsibility are not replaced. This limited permission does not authorize uploading a submitted manuscript, any part of a manuscript, a peer-review report, editorial correspondence, or any other confidential editorial material to an external artificial intelligence system. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, integrity, and confidentiality of their assessments.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone who is not directly involved in its editorial assessment, peer review, or an authorized research integrity investigation.

The identities of reviewers must remain confidential to authors throughout the single-blind peer-review process. Information obtained during editorial handling or peer review must not be used to disadvantage, discredit, or obtain an improper advantage over authors or other researchers.

Reviewers must not share a manuscript or involve another person in its assessment without the prior permission of the journal. If the journal authorizes another person to contribute to a review, that person’s involvement must be disclosed and appropriately recorded in the journal’s editorial records. All individuals involved must comply with the journal’s confidentiality, conflict-of-interest, and applicable artificial intelligence requirements.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly about a manuscript under review unless expressly authorized by the journal. All communications concerning the review must follow the journal’s established procedures.

The confidentiality requirements in this section apply to manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and other non-public information obtained through editorial handling or peer review.

Such material must not be disclosed to or uploaded to external artificial intelligence systems. The journal’s restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence by reviewers and editors remain applicable.

Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, their assessment of a manuscript. Relevant circumstances may include recent research collaboration, shared institutional affiliation, personal or professional relationships, academic competition, financial interests, or other circumstances that could compromise impartial judgment.

A conflict of interest must be assessed in relation to the specific manuscript and the circumstances of the individual involved. Any editor or reviewer with a relevant conflict of interest must be excluded from the affected stage of the process and replaced where necessary.

Section Editors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest before accepting a manuscript assignment. If a conflict arises or is identified later, it must be disclosed promptly, and the editor must withdraw from further handling. The manuscript shall then be reassigned to an independent and appropriately qualified editor.

If the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict of interest, an independent and authorized Associate Editor shall assume responsibility for the manuscript and make the final editorial decision, provided that the Associate Editor has no relevant conflict of interest. If that Associate Editor cannot act independently, another appropriately qualified and authorized editor must be appointed. The conflicted Editor-in-Chief must not participate in or influence the process or final decision.

If all three Associate Editors have relevant conflicts of interest, an independent Section Editor may conduct the initial screening and manage the subsequent editorial process. The final decision must be made by another appropriately qualified and authorized editor who has no relevant conflict of interest and whose independence has not been compromised. If no such decision-maker is available, an appropriate independent editor must be appointed before a final decision is made.

All declarations, withdrawals, reassignments, and relevant authorizations concerning conflicts of interest must be recorded in the journal’s editorial management system to support transparency and accountability.

Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are based on the reviewer reports, the Section Editor’s assessment and recommendation, the manuscript’s scholarly merit, its relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, and its compliance with ethical and publication standards.

Possible final editorial outcomes include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, rejection, or rejection with the possibility of resubmission.

Under the normal editorial workflow, the Section Editor evaluates the reviewer reports and submits an editorial recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief through the journal’s editorial management system. The recommendation options available to the Section Editor may include acceptance, decline, and revision required. These options represent recommendations and do not, by themselves, constitute the final editorial decision.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final editorial decision under the normal workflow. Where the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict of interest, the final decision shall be made by an independent Associate Editor who is authorized to make that decision. If all three Associate Editors have relevant conflicts of interest, another appropriately qualified, independent, and authorized editor must make the final decision.

No editor who has a relevant conflict of interest may participate in or influence the final decision. All decisions must be documented in the journal’s editorial management system.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance solely because positive reviewer reports have been received. Every final decision must reflect an independent assessment of the manuscript’s scholarly quality, the reviewer reports where applicable, and the journal’s editorial and ethical requirements.

Revisions

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a clear, point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed. Where a comment has not been followed, the authors should provide a reasoned explanation.

Depending on the nature and extent of the requested revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment or evaluated by the Section Editor. The Section Editor shall consider the revised manuscript and the responses provided by the authors before submitting a recommendation to the authorized editorial decision-maker.

A revised manuscript may be subject to further revision, acceptance, or rejection, depending on the extent to which the concerns raised during the review process have been resolved. Any subsequent decision must follow the same conflict-of-interest and decision-authority safeguards as the initial decision.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe that a significant error, procedural irregularity, or other substantial concern affected the review or decision-making process. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office and must include a clear, reasoned explanation of the grounds for appeal.

An appeal must be assessed by an appropriately qualified and authorized editor who was not directly involved in the original decision and who has no relevant conflict of interest. The editor handling the appeal must independently assess the grounds presented and the relevant editorial record.

If the Editor-in-Chief made or directly participated in the original decision, the appeal shall be assigned to another independent and authorized editor. If the Editor-in-Chief or another otherwise responsible editor has a relevant conflict of interest, that editor must not participate in the appeal. Where necessary, an independent editor shall be appointed before the appeal is assessed.

An appeal is not a guarantee that the original decision will be changed. The outcome shall be based on an impartial assessment of the grounds presented and the relevant editorial record. The appeal outcome and its reasons shall be documented in the journal’s editorial management system.

Ethical Concerns During Review

If plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, citation manipulation, authorship concerns, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other potential research or publication ethics violations are identified during editorial screening or peer review, the journal may suspend the editorial process while the concern is assessed.

Reviewers who identify potential research or publication ethics violations must report their concerns confidentially to the editorial office and provide relevant supporting information where available. Reviewers must not independently investigate suspected misconduct or contact the authors directly about such concerns unless expressly authorized by the journal.

The journal may request clarification or supporting information from the authors and, where appropriate, consult relevant institutions, research integrity specialists, or other appropriate parties. Any consultation must be conducted confidentially and must not compromise the independence of the editorial decision.

Depending on the findings, the manuscript may be rejected or further editorial action may be taken in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policies. All such matters must be handled fairly, confidentially, and consistently with the journal’s applicable policies.

Editorial Independence and Use of Artificial Intelligence by Editors

Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial, financial, institutional, political, or personal influence. Manuscripts are evaluated on the basis of their scholarly quality, originality, mathematical rigor, relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, and compliance with ethical and publication standards.

The publisher provides the infrastructure and support necessary for the journal’s operation but does not interfere with editorial decisions concerning individual manuscripts. The Editor-in-Chief and other duly authorized editorial decision-makers are responsible for ensuring that editorial decisions are made impartially and in accordance with the journal’s policies.

Editors must comply with the journal’s policy on artificial intelligence and research integrity. They must not use generative artificial intelligence or artificial intelligence-assisted technologies to generate, draft, or substantially formulate editorial decisions, recommendations, evaluations, or other substantive assessments of submitted manuscripts.

Limited use of artificial intelligence-assisted tools for routine language editing or administrative purposes is permitted only where confidentiality is maintained, no unpublished manuscript content or other confidential information is disclosed to an artificial intelligence system, and the editor’s independent scholarly judgment and responsibility are not replaced. This limited permission does not authorize uploading a submitted manuscript, any part of a manuscript, a peer-review report, editorial correspondence, or any other confidential editorial material to an external artificial intelligence system. Editors remain fully responsible for their editorial assessments and decisions.

Where necessary to address research integrity concerns or to establish an independent editorial process, editors may consult the publisher, relevant institutions, research integrity specialists, or other appropriate parties. Such consultation must not compromise editorial independence or transfer responsibility for scholarly decisions to parties without the appropriate editorial authority.

No article processing charges, submission fees, or mandatory publication fees are charged. Editorial screening, reviewer selection, peer-review outcomes, and publication decisions are based solely on scholarly and ethical considerations.

The journal’s editorial independence policy is informed by the principles set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics in its position statement on editorial independence. The journal’s reviewer responsibilities are also informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics’ Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

References

Committee on Publication Ethics. Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Version 2, September 2017. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

Committee on Publication Ethics. Editorial Independence. https://doi.org/10.24318/wTjdlHE5