Review Process Overview
The journal uses double-blind review, anonymizing both authors and reviewers to minimize bias and focus on scientific merit. All submissions undergo initial editorial screening, followed by expert evaluation, with decisions based on originality, rigor, and relevance to special functions or number theory.
Step-by-Step Workflow
Manuscript Submission: Authors submit via the journal's online system, including anonymized files (no names, affiliations, or identifiers).
Initial Editorial Screening: Editor-in-Chief or handling editor checks scope fit, completeness, ethics, and quality within 1 week; desk rejects ~20-30% if unsuitable.
Reviewer Assignment: Two to three independent experts (with expertise in special functions, number theory, or applications) are invited; acceptance rate ~70% of invites.
Peer Review: Reviewers assess novelty, methodology, results validity, clarity, and citations using a standard form; timeline 4-8 weeks.
Revision and Re-review: Authors receive anonymized feedback; major revisions re-reviewed (up to two rounds).
Final Decision: Editor decides accept, minor revisions, reject, or reject-resubmit; ~30-40% acceptance overall.
Publication: Accepted papers are copy-edited, proofed, and published online first, then in issues (quarterly target).
Review Criteria
Originality and contribution to special functions or number theory.
Methodological soundness and logical conclusions.
Clarity, completeness of proofs/figures/tables.
Ethical compliance (plagiarism check <15% similarity).
Timelines and Transparency
Average: 8-12 weeks from submission to first decision. Process details published on journal website; appeals allowed for editorial decisions only. Reviewers compensated via recognition; conflicts disclosed.