Peer Reviewing of articles is an essential part of the publishing process for scholarly work, and is employed by all reputable scientific journals. It is an objective process that often provides useful feedback to authors and ensures that their work is presented in the best possible way. The Editorial Board of Iranian Journal of Mathematical Chemistry would like to take this opportunity of publicly thanking our referees, past, present and future, for giving us their valuable time and for their vital contribution to the success of this journal.
Initial Screening: Each manuscript is reviewed by a member of the Editorial Board, who may suggest referees if the paper passes the initial evaluation. Authors of papers rejected at this stage will be informed within about two weeks of submission.
Reviewing Process: The Editor may seek the advice of up to three referees, chosen in consultation with appropriate members of the Editorial Board, from among experts in the field of specialization of the paper. Referees are asked to comment on the originality and scientific correctness of the work, and to note deviations from appropriate ethical guidelines, lack of references to the available literature, etc. A referee may recommend acceptance, perhaps following minor corrections; acceptance conditional on the successful completion of a more extensive revision; re-evaluation following a major revision that may involve extensions to the original manuscript; or rejection. The time taken by the reviewing process will vary, depending on such factors as the availability of appropriate referees, the number and nature of any requested revisions, etc., but every effort is made to complete this process as quickly as possible.
Confidentiality: The reviewing process is conducted in strict confidence and the identity of a referee is not disclosed to the authors at any point.
Final Decision: At the completion of the reviewing process the Editor makes the final decision to accept or reject the article. This decision is communicated to the corresponding author, together with any remaining feedback from the referees.