To evaluate an article sent from the system, follow the steps below:

• Login with your ID and password.
• Enter the Journal Panel of the Mathematical Sciences and Applications E-Notes from the My Journals section.
• Log in to the reviewer panel.
• Click the title of the article which be appointed for peer review by you from the new invitation section.
• Acceptance or denial of the peer review will ask you on the page that will pop up. For the accept of peer review, please click “Accept the Review” in the green section.
• You will see the full article in the “Documents” after accept review.
• After reviewing the article, please fill out the review form in the “Reviews” section. Upload the review file if there is one.
• Lastly, click the button “Send the Review” that spots the right side of the page.

Peer Reviewing Processes

The referees for the Mathematical Sciences and Applications E-Notes are chosen from among the subject-matter specialists who contribute to the papers. The duties of referees, ethical guidelines, article evaluation standards, and procedure of the MSAEN are explained to all chosen referees.

After accepting peer review, reviewers must consider the "Responsibilities of the Reviewer and Ethical Principles to be Followed" and "Reviewing Processes" in the system.

Reviewers should only agree to examine articles for which they have the relevant knowledge to conduct a suitable evaluation, are able to uphold the confidentially of blind peer review, and can maintain the secrecy of the article's specifics at all times.

Reviewers who have been asked to consider an article are expected to respond with their acceptance or rejection of the review within 7 days. If the reviewer has not decided by the end of this time period, the review is deemed refused, and the editor names a new reviewer. Within 30 days of the date they accepted the invitation to review, the reviewers who accept the review are expected to share their thoughts. If the reviewer requests it, the referee who does not finish the review procedure within this time frame is offered an extended period of up to 7 days. A new referee may be chosen if the current referee does not ask for more time.

Each reviewer who accepts the request to review is required to complete a review form and state whether they agree or disagree with the article, along with specific justifications.

In the Review form, the referees are expected to answer the following questions.

Does the Title of the manuscript reflect the contents?
Is the quality of language (grammar, spelling, punctuation, and English structure) sufficient to easily understand the manuscript?
Does the Abstract read well and reflect the contents of the manuscript?
Are the AMS Mathematics Subject Classification (MSC) numbers consistent with the title of the manuscript?
Is the Literature Review relevant, adequate, and up to date?
Is the Analysis comprehensive and mathematically correct?
Is the Conclusion section adequate?
Are the References complete (year, volume, number, pages)?
Are the Tables and Figures in the right locations?
Is the manuscript well organized?
Is the manuscript interesting and contains sufficiently novel ideas to warrant publication?
The reviewers give an opinion on all of these issues by choosing one of the options Yes, No, or Need Revision. The referees do not need to approve all of these issues in order for the article to be published. However, in the review form, the suggestions regarding the parts given as “No” and “Need Revision”, and other suggestions to the author should be stated in the "Note to the Author" section.

After completing this form, the referees can make the following decisions:

The paper is referred to a third reviewer if one peer reviewer's evaluation is positive and the other is negative.

A manuscript can be rejected by a single peer review report, but it must receive at least two reviews before it can be accepted.

If one of the peer reviews reports "Accept" or "Minor Revision" and the other "Major Revision" and the editor's opinion favors the acceptance of the article, the manuscript is sent to the same reviewer after the author makes the corrections. According to the opinion of the referee who has a "Major Revision" report, the article can be rejected, accepted, or sent to a new referee.

The data of the articles based on field research or data analysis can be requested from the editor by the referee for a healthy review of the analyses in the article. The editor of the journal communicates with the author in this regard and transmits the data to the reviewer.

Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors, and/or research funders. When a conflict of interest is foreseen, the referee should contact the editorial board and indicate a possible conflict of interest. The Conflict of Interest Framework published by COPE will be taken into account in any conflicts of interest that may arise.

Reviewers are not permitted to utilize or divulge the data of the publications they have reviewed before they are published.

The names of the reviewers who make evaluations in the journal are not disclosed/published.