Peer Review Process

1. Peer Review Type

High-Impact Techniques for Understanding Analysis and Numerical Growth (HITAUNG) applies a double-blind peer review system, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. This ensures an unbiased, fair, and objective evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.

2. Editorial and Review Process

Initial Screening (Desk Evaluation)

Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by the Editorial Office to ensure:

  • Alignment with the journal’s scope in mathematical analysis, numerical methods, computational mathematics, mathematical modeling, and related disciplines
  • Compliance with the journal's author guidelines
  • Adequate scientific quality, originality, structure, and methodological clarity

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic standards or fall outside its scope may be rejected without external review.

Plagiarism Check

All submitted manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection tools to assess originality and prevent academic misconduct. Manuscripts containing substantial levels of plagiarism or inappropriate use of previously published material may be rejected or returned to the authors for clarification and revision.

Peer Review Process

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the submitted research, such as mathematical analysis, real analysis, complex analysis, functional analysis, numerical analysis, numerical methods, differential equations, computational mathematics, mathematical modeling, optimization, scientific computing, applied mathematics, and related fields.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, subject expertise, and research experience. The review process follows internationally recognized practices in scholarly publishing.

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports and the Editor's assessment, one of the following decisions may be made:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following aspects:

  • Relevance to mathematical analysis, numerical methods, computational mathematics, mathematical modeling, or related fields
  • Originality and contribution to mathematical knowledge
  • Theoretical soundness and/or methodological rigor
  • Correctness and validity of mathematical arguments, numerical methods, algorithms, or computational procedures
  • Quality of data, numerical results, simulations, and their interpretation, where applicable
  • Quality of mathematical presentation, writing, and manuscript organization
  • Adequacy and relevance of references
  • Compliance with ethical standards and responsible research practices

4. Review Timeline

High-Impact Techniques for Understanding Analysis and Numerical Growth (HITAUNG) is committed to maintaining an efficient and timely peer review process:

  • Average review time: 1–3 weeks
  • First decision: approximately 2–4 weeks after submission

The actual review period may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and editorial workload.

5. Ethical Standards and Transparency

The journal adheres to internationally recognized standards of publication ethics and follows the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts
  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest
  • Provide objective, constructive, and scientifically appropriate feedback
  • Avoid using unpublished information from submitted manuscripts for personal research purposes
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or inform the editor if they are unable to do so

6. Author Revisions

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to:

  • Address all reviewer and editorial comments carefully and systematically
  • Provide a detailed response to each comment
  • Clearly indicate revisions made to the manuscript
  • Resubmit the revised manuscript within the specified timeframe

Failure to adequately address reviewer or editorial comments may result in further revision or rejection of the manuscript.

7. Final Decision

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Editor, taking into consideration:

  • Reviewer recommendations
  • Quality and completeness of author revisions
  • Scientific validity and originality
  • Relevance to the journal's scope
  • Overall academic merit of the manuscript

Reviewer recommendations are considered carefully but do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.

8. Production and Publication

Accepted manuscripts will undergo the journal's production process, which may include:

  • Professional copyediting
  • English language and proofreading checks
  • Layout and formatting
  • Final author proof review, where applicable

All articles are published under an open access model, providing free and immediate access to readers worldwide in accordance with the journal's open access policy.

9. Appeals and Complaints

Authors have the right to appeal an editorial decision by submitting a formal appeal with clear and substantive justification. Appeals should address specific concerns regarding the editorial or peer-review process.

Appeals will be considered objectively by the editorial team. Where appropriate, an additional editorial assessment or independent review may be conducted. The outcome of an appeal is determined by the journal's editorial procedures.

10. General Provisions

The journal may assign additional reviewers when necessary, particularly when specialized expertise is required or when reviewer recommendations substantially differ.

A manuscript may be returned for additional revision or reassessment when necessary to ensure its mathematical correctness, methodological soundness, and academic quality.

Editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts at any stage of the editorial process if serious ethical concerns, substantial methodological problems, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other forms of academic misconduct are identified.