Review Policy

1. Overview

VFAST Transactions on Mathematics (VTM) follows a rigorous, transparent, and standardized peer‑review process to ensure the highest standards of scholarly publishing, academic integrity, and research quality. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo editorial screening and independent peer review before a publication decision is made.

The journal operates a single‑blind peer‑review system, in which reviewers know the identity of the authors, but authors do not know the identity of reviewers.

The journal does not guarantee manuscript acceptance and does not promise unrealistic or fixed review timelines. Editorial decisions are based solely on academic merit, originality, methodological rigor, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

2. Editorial Screening (Desk Review)

All submissions first undergo an internal editorial evaluation to determine whether the manuscript:

  • falls within the journal’s scope

  • meets academic and language standards

  • follows submission guidelines

  • demonstrates originality

  • passes plagiarism screening

Manuscripts may be desk rejected at this stage if they:

  • are out of scope

  • contain plagiarism or ethical concerns

  • lack scientific rigor

  • are poorly structured or written

  • fail to meet formatting requirements

Estimated time: ~2 days

3. Plagiarism and Integrity Screening

Before peer review, manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection tools and editorial assessment. Submissions with unacceptable similarity or ethical concerns are rejected immediately. Authors may be asked to revise and resubmit if similarity issues are minor and correctable.

4. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are assigned to qualified independent reviewers who:

  • possess relevant subject expertise

  • hold academic or research credentials in the field

  • have no conflicts of interest with the authors

Typically, at least two reviewers evaluate each manuscript.

5. Peer‑Review Process Steps

No. Step Estimated Time
1 Internal Editorial Screening 2 days
2 External Peer Review 15–30 days
3 Decision + Reviewer Reports Sent to Authors 2 days
4 Author Revision 7–30 days
5 Second Review (if major revision required) 7 days
6 Final Decision 3–7 days
Total Submission to Acceptance 29–78 days

If reviewers return reports earlier or authors submit revisions promptly, processing time may be shorter. Timeline variations depend solely on reviewer availability and author responsiveness. The journal does not offer paid fast‑track review.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Declined 

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor‑in‑Chief or designated handling editor.

7. Revision Policy

If revisions are requested:

  • Authors must submit a revised manuscript with a detailed response to reviewers.

  • For major revisions, the manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers.

  • Failure to adequately address comments may result in rejection.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not:

  • share manuscripts

  • disclose results

  • use unpublished data

  • discuss submissions with third parties

Confidentiality is maintained throughout and after the review process.

9. Conflict of Interest Policy

Editors and reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest, including:

  • institutional affiliation

  • collaboration history

  • personal relationships

  • financial interests

Individuals with conflicts must decline review or editorial handling.

Authors must also disclose funding sources and conflicts of interest in their manuscripts.

10. Ethical Responsibilities

Authors

Authors must ensure that:

  • the work is original

  • data is accurate

  • sources are properly cited

  • the manuscript is not under review elsewhere

Reviewers

Reviewers must:

  • provide objective, constructive feedback

  • avoid personal criticism

  • maintain confidentiality

  • complete reviews within agreed timelines

Editors

Editors must:

  • act fairly and without bias

  • evaluate manuscripts solely on academic merit

  • ensure confidentiality

  • avoid conflicts of interest

11. Appeals Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written justification explaining why they believe the decision was incorrect. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor‑in‑Chief and, if necessary, an independent editorial advisor. Appeal decisions are final.

12. Corrections and Retractions

If errors or ethical concerns are discovered after publication, the journal may issue:

  • corrections

  • expressions of concern

  • retractions

Such actions follow international publication ethics standards and are decided by the editorial board.

13. Transparency and Integrity Statement

VTM is committed to maintaining transparent editorial practices and standardized peer review procedures. All submissions are evaluated fairly, without discrimination based on nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, or personal beliefs.

14. Policy Applicability

This peer‑review policy applies to all submissions to VFAST Transactions on Mathematics (VTM) and is mandatory for authors, reviewers, and editors involved in the publication process.