Peer Review Process
Musamus Journal of Mathematics Education (MJME) published the only paper strictly following MJME guidelines and template for preparation manuscript. All submitted manuscripts are going through a double-blind peer review process, reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers. In general, each article will be reviewed by one to two people reviews. Those papers are read by editorial members (upon field of specialization) and will be screened by Managing Editor to meet necessary criteria of MJME publication. Manuscripts will be sent to two reviewers based on their historical experience in reviewing manuscript or based on their field of specialisation. MJME has reviewing forms in order to keep same items reviewed by two reviewers. Then editorial board make a decision upon the reviewers comments or advice. Reviewers give their assessment on originality, clarity of presentation, contribution to the field/science, MJME has four kind of decisions:
- Accepted, as it is
- Accepted by Minor Revisions (let authors revised with stipulated time)
- Accepted by Major Revisions (let authors revised with stipulated time)
- Rejected (generally, on grounds of outside of scope and aim, major technical description problems, lack of clarity of presentation)
An article was rejected for publication due to various considerations, including:
1. The article does not fit the scope
2. The article does not follow the rules of writing scientific papers / do not follow the guidelines authors
3. The fundamental methodological errors
4. The author refuses to make suggestions of improvements provided by the reviewer without a logical basis.
5. There are indications of plagiarism of more than 30%
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Promptness. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.