American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

Probability, Uncertainty and Quantitative Risk

Instructions

All reviews are via EditFlow system, whose instructions are at here. For questions and technical problems, please contact  editflow@msp.org. 

Peer review is the cornerstone in securing quality and reputation of the scientific publishing. Therefore, reviewers play a pivotal role in scholarly publishing. The peer review system exists to validate academic work, helps to improve the quality of published research, and increases networking possibilities within research communities. Peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation and has continued successfully for more than 300 years.

On the other hand, it is also important to get involved in peer review and the many benefits it can bring. You will hear how carrying out peer review can sharpen your own writing skills, keep you abreast with current development of the topics and introduce you to some of the influential researchers in your field. You will learn how you can volunteer and discover the ethics guidelines you should comply with.

Your involvement in the editorial process is important to ensure peer review’s diversity and transparency that are central to both academia and your research career. Saying ‘yes’ when an editor asks you to review can boost your research and publishing career.

AIMS relies on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles and the journals that publish them.

AIMS journals use ‘single blind review,’ namely, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type by far.

Reviewers evaluate article submissions based on the requirements and quality of the journal, thus, familiarize yourself with the journal guidelines. In the report, you would need to provide feedback on the paper, suggest improvements and make a recommendation to the editor about whether to accept, reject or request changes to the article. Your comments should be courteous and constructive. Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments.