All manuscripts submitted to Asia Pacific Journal of Mathematics are screened with Crossref Similarity Check (powered by iThenticate) before they enter peer review. Normally, the similarity rate of a manuscript should not exceed 20%. Manuscripts that pass this check undergo the following editorial workflow, and every research article published in the journal has been assessed by at least two independent reviewers under the single-blind model described below.

The process is single blinded (the reviewers know the identity of the manuscript authors, while the authors are unaware of the identity of the reviewers).

The manuscripts should be submitted at the following address: https://em.apacific.org/, and should not be submitted to the editors’ personal email addresses directly. Once a manuscript is confirmed by the editorial office, to comply with the Journal’s style, the manuscript will be forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief who will assign it to an appropriate Editor. The assigned Editor will be from among the Journal’s editorial board members most qualified to handle the manuscript based on the subject of the manuscript and availability of members.

If the Editor determines that the manuscript is not of sufficient quality and/or does not fall within the scope of the journal, the Editor will reject the manuscript; otherwise the Editor will start the review process. The Editor will assign not less than two reviewers to evaluate the quality of the presented work and its merit for publication. The reviewers will submit their reports on the manuscript along with one of their recommendations to the Editor:

Accept unaltered
Consider after minor changes
Consider after major changes
Reject

Based upon the reviewers’ recommendations, the Editor will make one of the following decisions:

Publish unaltered: The manuscript is accepted for publication

Publish after minor changes: The author(s) are notified to submit, within a time period specified by the Editor, a revised copy of their manuscript with the required changes suggested by the reviewers and the Editor. The author(s) should also submit a letter detailing all changes made to the manuscript. The Editor will review the revised manuscript and, if satisfied, the manuscript will be accepted.

Publish after major changes: The author(s) are notified to submit, within a time period specified by the Editor, a revised copy of their manuscript with the required changes requested by the reviewers and the Editor. The author(s) should also submit a letter detailing all changes made to the manuscript. The reviewers will then submit their reports and one of the 4 recommendations above to the Editor.

Reject: Immediate irreversible rejection. This also will be the decision if a majority of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript.

Indicative timelines

Asia Pacific Journal of Mathematics aims to meet the targets set out below. These are targets rather than guarantees: an individual manuscript may take longer where a suitable reviewer is difficult to find, or where a reviewer is delayed.

Initial editorial assessment, that is, from submission to the decision either to reject the manuscript without review or to send it out for review: within 2 weeks of submission.

First round of review, that is, from submission to the first decision taken on the basis of reviewer reports: within 12 weeks of submission.

Publication, that is, from acceptance to the appearance of the final version on the journal website: within 4 weeks of acceptance.

Authors are asked to return a revised manuscript within the period specified by the Editor in the decision letter. Authors who need more time should contact the editorial office rather than allow the deadline to pass.

Guidance for reviewers

Reviewers are asked to assess whether the results are correct, whether they are new, and whether the manuscript is written clearly enough for a reader working in the area to follow it. A report should state a recommendation and give reasons for it; a recommendation to reject should identify the specific error, or the specific lack of novelty, on which it rests.

A manuscript sent for review is a confidential document. It must not be shown or described to anyone other than the handling Editor, must not be used in the reviewer’s own work, and must not be uploaded to a generative AI tool or to any other service that does not guarantee confidentiality, as set out in Section 18.4 of the Publication Ethics statement. Reviewers must write their own reports.

A reviewer who has a conflict of interest with any of the authors, or who does not have the expertise the manuscript calls for, should decline the invitation and, where possible, suggest an alternative reviewer. Reviewers must not require or suggest that authors add citations to the reviewer’s own work or to articles published in this journal.

Reviewers are asked to return a report within four weeks of accepting an invitation, which is the period stated in the invitation itself. A reviewer who needs longer should tell the editorial office rather than let the deadline pass.