eISSN: 2231-8879

Published by:

SANDKRS sdn bhd.

For Reviewers

Articles submitted to the Journal of Computer Science & Computational Mathematics are subjected to the blind peer review process. The publisher encourages all reviewers to use the online peer review system to conduct the review. The registration will be done automatically for you.

To establish high-quality research in the journal, peer review is inevitable. The Editors and Editorial Board of the Journal of Computer Science & Computational Mathematics look for relentless and unreserved support from respected reviewers.

1. The reviewers must consider these criteria for peer-review during the evaluation

  • The study presents the results of original research.
  • The results reported have not been published elsewhere.
  • The research meets all applicable standards of ethics and research integrity (duplication, manipulation of data, plagiarism etc.).
  • The paper should represent the statistical accuracy and validity of the methods adopted in studying the problem (if required, reviewers can contact the editor to obtain the primary data from the authors).
  • Presence of conceptual advancement over previously published work.
  • The article should not indicate any redundancy.
  • The potential significance of the work with respect to the present and future.

2. Writing the Review

The editors expect the reviewers (as an expert) to provide them with their opinion regarding the quality of research for the manuscript under consideration. The review should also provide the authors with explicit feedback on the way they can improve their paper so that the paper is accepted for publication in the Journal of Computer Science & Computational Mathematics.

a. As a reviewer, please follow these while preparing your review:

  • Provide your opinion on the quality of the article and indicate the areas of concern
  • Summarise the strengths and weaknesses of the paper
  • Suggest the author(s) on the steps they need to take for improving the quality of the article
  • Suggest any alternate hypothesis or understanding of the results obtained
  • If the article is worthy of rejection, you should indicate the grounds on which the decision is taken. As a reviewer, you are allowed to be very critical on the article presented, but at the same time, you must avoid any personalized remarks which may be viewed as biased or with ulterior motive

b. Reviewer comments: The reviewers are able to provide their comments to the editor as well as blind comments to the author(s) of the paper using the online review system.

c. Supplement file attachments: The reviewer can provide additional comments in a word / PDF file. Although the comments can be inserted directly into the original manuscript file, the reviewer is suggested not to do so. The corrections are advised to be provided on the PDF file of the manuscript. You may download Adobe Acrobat Reader to make comments which is available online at http://get.adobe.com/uk/reader/ without any charge.

d. Important Note: While the publisher follows the blind system of peer-review, the following comments are to be taken by the reviewer before submitting the attachments:

  • Any information that reveals the identity of the originator must be removed.
  • Authors and Reviewers should not send any attachments via e-mail.

e. Confidentiality: The review process is strictly confidential and the reviewers must treat in the same way. Any confidential information gained by the reviewer in the review process must not be taken and used before the paper is published. Even after publication, only publicly published data can be used and the information from any earlier draft can be used only after obtaining the written permission from the author(s).

These guidelines are adapted from the PLoS ONE website (http://www.plosone.org), published under the Creative Commons Attribution License

archivePaper List