Peer Review Board

The Guardians of Rigor

Our reviewers do more than check for errors. They provide the mentorship and constructive feedback that shape the next generation of mathematicians.

Review Guidelines Reviewer Portal — Launching Soon

Our Review Philosophy

Constructive. Educational. Rigorous.

Gatekeepers of Quality

Ensure mathematical correctness is absolute. There is no compromise on the validity of the proofs or the logic presented.

Mentors at Heart

Especially for our Emerging Scholars track, we ask that you provide actionable advice on writing and structure, rather than simple rejection.

Valuing the Novelty and Clarity

We accept papers presenting new and interesting results supported by nontrivial proofs, as well as papers that offer a substantive new perspective on established and well-known results.

Specific Evaluation Criteria

We have different expectations for our specialized tracks. Please check the paper type before reviewing.

Emerging Scholars Track

For Undergraduate & High School submissions.

  • Prioritize Potential: Is the core idea novel and/or interesting?
  • Coach the Writing: If the math is sound but the writing is poor, recommend "Major Revisions" and give specific examples of how to fix a paragraph.
  • Tone Check: Keep comments encouraging. Remember this may be the author's first professional submission.

AI-Assisted Discovery

For papers focusing on AI orchestration.

  • Check the Prompts: Are the prompts creative?
  • Verify Human Logic: Does the author explain why they asked the AI that specific question?
  • No Brute Force: Reject papers that simply paste AI output without substantial human analysis and verification.

The Review Process

A step-by-step guide to conducting a constructive and ethical review.

Review Steps

Getting Started

If you have been invited to review, please read the title and abstract first.

Ask yourself:

  • Do I have sufficient expertise in this specific topic?
  • Can I meet the deadline (usually 3–4 weeks)?
  • Am I free of any conflicts of interest?
Tip: If you must decline, we greatly appreciate suggestions for alternative reviewers.

What to Evaluate

Your role is to help editors ensure correctness and educational value.

Mathematical Correctness

Are proofs complete? Are statements precise? Is the logic sound?

Clarity (Crucial)

Is it readable for an undergraduate audience? Are definitions motivated?

Suitability

Does this paper contribute meaningfully to mathematical learning or teaching?

Writing Your Review

A high-quality review is constructive, specific, and helpful.

Structure your report:

1. Summary: Briefly summarize the manuscript's contribution.

2. General Evaluation: Assess correctness, clarity, and fit.

3. Specific Comments: Point out specific lines or theorems that need work.

Confidentiality & Ethics

Manuscripts are confidential documents. They must not be shared or used for your own work.

Red Flags to Watch For:

  • Plagiarism: Unattributed text or results.
  • Duplicate Submission: Paper appears to be under review elsewhere.
  • Conflict of Interest: You have a close relationship with the author.
If you suspect ethical misconduct, notify the Editor-in-Chief confidentially. Do not accuse the author directly.

Completing the Review

Upload your report to the submission system and select your recommendation:

  • Accept Ready for publication as is.
  • Minor Revision Small clarifications needed.
  • Major Revision Significant mathematical or structural issues.
  • Reject Not suitable for this journal.

Note: The editor makes the final decision based on your advice.