All research content published in the Journal of Mathematics is subject to double-blind peer review. Neither authors nor referees learn each other's identity at any stage, and editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific merit of the work.

1. Initial editorial screening

Every submission is first examined by the Editor-in-Chief or a Managing Editor. At this stage the manuscript is checked for fit with the aims and scope of the journal, mathematical substance, structural completeness, language quality, reference accuracy and compliance with the submission checklist. A similarity report is also generated. Manuscripts that fall outside scope or fail these basic checks are returned to the authors without external review, normally within two weeks.

2. Assignment of referees

Manuscripts that pass screening are assigned to an Associate Editor working in the relevant subject area, who invites a minimum of two independent referees. Referees are selected for demonstrated expertise in the specific topic and must have no conflict of interest with the authors. Referees who are at the same institution as an author, who have co-authored with an author in the preceding three years, or who have any personal or financial interest in the outcome are not used.

3. What referees are asked to assess

• Originality of the contribution and its significance to the field.
• Correctness and completeness of definitions, statements, proofs and computations.
• Adequacy of the literature review and fairness of attribution to prior work.
• Clarity of exposition, notation and structure.
• Reproducibility of any numerical experiments, and availability of code or data where relevant.
• Appropriateness of the title, abstract and keywords.

4. Recommendations and decisions

Referees recommend one of: accept, minor revision, major revision, resubmit for review, or reject. Recommendations are advisory. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, who weighs the reports, the authors' responses and the overall standards of the journal. Where two referees disagree substantially, an additional referee is invited before a decision is taken.

5. Revisions

Authors submitting a revised manuscript must supply a point-by-point response addressing every referee comment, together with a version in which the changes are clearly marked. Revised manuscripts are normally returned to the original referees. Authors are given four weeks for minor revisions and eight weeks for major revisions; extensions may be requested from the editorial office.

6. Indicative timelines

Stage	Target duration
Acknowledgement of submission	Within 3 working days
Initial editorial screening	1–2 weeks
Referee reports returned	4–8 weeks
First decision communicated	Within 10 weeks of submission
Publication after acceptance	Within the next scheduled issue

These are targets rather than guarantees. The journal does not offer expedited or paid fast-track review under any circumstances, and no fee influences an editorial decision.

7. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under consideration are confidential documents. Referees must not share, cite, distribute or use the content of a manuscript for any purpose, must not involve a third party in the review without the editor's consent, and must destroy or delete their copy once the review is complete.

8. Editorial submissions

When a member of the editorial team submits to the journal, that person is entirely excluded from the handling of the manuscript. The submission is assigned to an independent editor, and the author has no access to the review record or to the identity of the referees.