All Issues

Volume 12, 2022

Volume 11, 2021

Volume 10, 2020

Volume 9, 2019

Volume 8, 2018

Volume 7, 2017

Volume 6, 2016

Volume 5, 2015

Volume 4, 2014

Volume 3, 2013

Volume 2, 2012

Volume 1, 2011

Numerical Algebra, Control and Optimization

Instructions for Editors (editorial board members)

The main duty of an editor is to have each assigned article properly reviewed and communicate your recommendation to the corresponding co-EIC (Editor in Chief) timely. Specifically, the following should be done:
(1) Normally, a submitted paper will be roughly screened by one of co-EICs. If the first screen is passed, the paper will be assigned to an editor. The editor should screen the paper the second time. If the editor feels that the assigned paper is not in the scope of the journal or it does not have enough mathematical contributions (being correct does not mean publishable), the editor should advise the co-EIC to reject the paper. A short explanation should be sent to the co-EIC.
(2) If the second screen is passed, the editor should invite at least 2 referees for the paper within 1 week, and ask the invited referees to confirm accept/decline within 5 days. It is expected to have 2 confirmed referees within 2 weeks. Each confirmed referee is asked to submit a report within 2 months. The goal is to secure 2 reports no later than 3 months. An automatic reminder email will be sent to the referees (copying to the editor and the corresponding co-EIC) 1 week before the due date. The editor should keep watching the situation. If the report(s) could not be received in time, the editor needs to invite some additional referee(s) as soon as possible.
(3) Once 2 reports have been received, the editor should make a definitive recommendation to the co-EIC. The basic rule is as follows: For convenience, let A=accept without changes; B=minor revision; C=major revision; D=reject. Then the recommendation normally is listed as follows:

Referee’s Reports

Your recommendation

A, A

Or B (if the editor feels some minor revision is needed)
Or C (if the editor feels some major revision is needed)

A, the other is B

Or C (if the editor feels some major revision is needed)

C, the other is A, B, or C


D, the other is A or B

Either the editor referees the paper to break the tie or invites an additional referee to break the tie. In the case that the tie is broken, and the author(s) are requested to make a revision, it must be a major revision and the submitted revision must convince the referee whose report suggests a rejection. If that referee is not convinced, the paper must be rejected.

D, the other is either D or C


(4) The editor could have opinions different from the reports. In that case, the editor should discuss with the corresponding co-EIC to resolve the issue.
(5) If a revision is requested, the author(s) will have 3 months to submit the revision. The author(s) could request an extension of additional 2 months by writing. The authors are encouraged to submit the satisfactory revision as early as possible to speed up the publication. If the revision is not received within the time limit, the paper will be treated withdrawn. If the revision has been received within the time limit, the editor will normally send the revision to the original referees to check see if all the comments/suggestions have been seriously taken care of. The editor should ask the referees to send the further reports within 1 month. Then a recommendation will be made accordingly.
The following are some principles that should be followed:
The role of an editor is to contribute, whenever possible, to the journal’s profile and reputation. In fact, all editors of the journal collectively define what the journal is and what the aims and scope of the journal are. Therefore, editors’  active involvement in the journal’s development cannot be overemphasized, such as promoting the journal to peers and colleagues, and suggesting ideas and strategies for further development of the journal, ensuring the peer review process to be fair and unbiased, and so on.
A journal’s reputation is built up with high standards both scientifically and ethically. Thus, editors should conduct the activities in accordance with generally accepted industry standards for integrity and objectivity. We recommend that editors consult the COPE short guide to ethical editing.

An editor must protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers, and the reviewers’ identities.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
An editor must not be involved in the editorial process about papers which s/he has written him/herself or have been written by family members or colleagues or which relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest.
An editor should work to safeguard the integrity of the published record by reviewing and assessing reported or suspected misconduct.

2021 CiteScore: 1.9




Special Issues

Email Alert

[Back to Top]