Peer Review Process

The Journal of Mathematics Learning Innovation employs a double-blind peer-review process to maintain the quality and credibility of its published articles. Each manuscript submitted for publication undergoes a systematic and rigorous evaluation, detailed in the steps outlined below:

1. Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts through the online submission system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). Manuscripts submitted via email will not be accepted.
2. Editorial Office Assessment
Upon receipt, manuscripts are initially assessed by the editorial team to ensure they fall within the journal’s aims and scope. The manuscript is checked for structural completeness and adherence to the journal’s Author Guidelines. A preliminary quality check is conducted, including an evaluation for any major methodological flaws. All submissions passing this stage are subjected to a Turnitin screening to detect potential plagiarism.
3. Editor-in-Chief’s Evaluation
The Editor-in-Chief evaluates whether the manuscript is appropriate for the journal, ensuring it is original, significant, and engaging enough for publication. If the manuscript does not meet these standards, it may be rejected without further review.
4. Reviewer Invitation
The handling editor sends invitations to qualified reviewers (or referees) based on their expertise, research interests, and the absence of any conflict of interest. The peer-review process at The Journal of Mathematics Learning Innovation focuses on issues related to algebraic development in mathematics education and applied mathematics, alongside broader topics in mathematics education. The journal uses a double-blind review system, meaning both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other.
5. Response to Invitation
Potential reviewers consider the invitation based on their expertise, availability, and potential conflicts of interest. They are asked to accept or decline the invitation. Reviewers who decline may suggest alternative reviewers.
6. Review Process
Reviewers read the manuscript multiple times, with the first reading providing an initial impression. If significant issues are identified early, reviewers may recommend rejection without further review. Otherwise, reviewers proceed to write a detailed, point-by-point critique. The reviewers’ final recommendation may include: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
7. Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief and the handling editor review all submitted feedback from the reviewers before making a final decision. If there is a significant discrepancy between the reviews, additional reviewers may be invited for further input.
8. Decision Notification
Authors are informed of the editorial decision via email, which includes anonymous reviewer comments. The authors are given an opportunity to revise the manuscript based on the feedback provided. Reviewers are also notified of the final decision regarding their reviews.
9. Final Stage
- - If the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to copy-editing and publication.
- - If revisions are requested, authors must revise the manuscript according to the reviewer comments and resubmit it.
- - In the case of major revisions, the revised manuscript is typically returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation, unless the reviewers choose to withdraw.
- - For minor revisions, the editor may independently evaluate the revised manuscript.
- - If the manuscript is rejected, the authors will receive constructive comments to assist them in improving their manuscript for submission elsewhere.