Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Peer review policy

Peer review policy

All submissions to Serdica Mathematical Journal are initially checked for completeness by the journal’s editorial team and only then undergo thorough single-blind peer-review. The peer-reviewed reports as well as the overall opinions and recommendations of the reviewers are considered by the Editor when making a decision, but ultimate authority for acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor. A manuscript may be rejected in case of a concern raised by a peer reviewer or the Editor himself. The journal office sends the authors the peer review reports on their manuscript together with the editorial decision.

In accordance with the COPE recommendations on ethical editing for new Editors, any submissions that cannot be handled by an Editor (e.g., if listed as an author or have any other competing interest) are assigned to another member of the Editorial Board.

Serdica Mathematical Journal has a strict policy against plagiarism. Any ideas, words, images or data taken from any sources without sufficient attribution is consider as a form of plagiarism. The use of any such material either directly or indirectly leads to a rejection of the submission. The journal’s peer-review process ensures that all submissions are carefully reviewed against the criteria of relevance, originality, significance, clarity and technical quality. Only the authors are responsible for the opinions expressed in the content and the accuracy of their data.

Reviewers are requested to comply with the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

Review process

  • The Editorial Assistant performs an initial quality check of all submitted manuscripts to identify potential issues such as: compliance with the Author Guidelines and recommendations on the preparation of manuscripts, competing interests, and completeness. Submissions may be returned to authors for changes or clarifications before progression to the Editors’ desk.
  • After completing the initial checks, each submission is assessed by the Editor-in-Chief and/or the Editors. The editor reviews the manuscript against the journal’s scope and publishing standards and determines whether it is suitable to progress to the next stage of the review process.
  • Manuscripts that have successfully passed through the Editors’ desk are placed with an Associate Editor with the necessary subject area expertise for handling. The Associate Editor evaluates the submission and decides if reviews from additional experts are needed. It is the Associate Editor's responsibility to select reviewers and oversee the subsequent peer review process.
  • Based on the peer-reviewed reports and their own assessment, the Associate Editor recommends to the Editors a decision on the manuscript.
  • The final decision rests with the Editors.

Communications with authors

A reasoned and constructive feedback about the decisions on the submitted manuscript is sent to the authors at each stage of the review process.

Conflicts of interest

Assigned reviewers should inform the editors and recuse themselves from the review process in case of any potential conflicts with the assigned manuscript, e.g., competitive, collaborative or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions.

Confidentiality

All participants in the peer review process must respect the confidentiality of the submitted papers. Any details of a manuscript or communications related to it should not be revealed, during or after the review.

Appeals and complaints

Authors may submit a formal appeal against editorial decisions and complaints about management of the peer review process. Appeal letters should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief and submitted to serdica@math.bas.bg within 7 days of the decision notice. A single appeal per manuscript is allowed. Authors must provide detailed reasons for the appeal and point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Editor's comments.

In accordance with the COPE guidelines and the generally accepted standards, appeals are considered only on the basis of: (i) reviewers’ potential technical errors in their assessment of the manuscript, (ii) new information or data that has come to light since submission of manuscript, and (iii) evidence as to potential conflicts of interest of reviewers.

After consultation with the editorial team, the Editor-in-Chief determines the final decision on the appeal.

Copyright

In order to publish an article in Serdica Mathematical Journal, a consent of all co-authors is required, regardless of their contribution to the work. Prior to manuscript submission, it is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure all necessary copyright release permissions for the use of any copyrighted materials in the manuscript.

If a manuscript is accepted for publication, authors will be asked to sign a warranty and copyright agreement before the work is published.