Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Letters in Nonlinear Analysis and its Applications (LNAA) undergo a rigorous initial editorial assessment followed by independent peer review. The journal is committed to a fair, timely, and transparent review process that complies with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Handling Editor evaluates the manuscript for scope, originality, language quality, and adherence to the journal’s author guidelines. Manuscripts that fall outside the scope of LNAA, are incomplete, or show insufficient mathematical depth may be desk-rejected without external review. All submissions are routinely screened for plagiarism using professional similarity-checking software (such as iThenticate or an equivalent tool).

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts passing the initial assessment are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in nonlinear analysis and related fields, their publication record, and the absence of any conflicts of interest. LNAA operates a single-blind peer review model (the reviewers know the identities of the authors, but the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers). Authors may suggest qualified reviewers or request the exclusion of specific reviewers, but the final selection of reviewers remains with the editorial office.

3. Review Process

Reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript within 3 to 4 weeks. They are asked to provide a comprehensive evaluation report covering originality, mathematical correctness, methodology, clarity, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Reviewers must provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept as is
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  • Originality, novelty, and theoretical significance of the mathematical results
  • Scientific soundness, rigor of proofs, and correctness of mathematical derivations
  • Clarity of presentation, logical structure, and quality of LaTeX formatting
  • Adequacy of literature review and proper referencing of foundational and recent works
  • Compliance with publication ethics
  • Overall relevance to the aims and scope of LNAA

5. Decision Types

Based on the reviewer reports and recommendations, the Handling Editor or Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following final decisions:

  • Accept as is
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject
  • Reject with option to resubmit as a new manuscript

6. Revision and Final Decision

Authors requested to revise their manuscript are given 3 weeks to submit the revised LaTeX source files and a point-by-point response to all reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation if necessary. The final publication decision rests entirely with the Editor-in-Chief.

7. Confidentiality and Anti-AI Policy

All submitted manuscripts are treated as strictly confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use unpublished material from submitted manuscripts.

In accordance with LNAA's ethics policy, reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading submitted manuscripts, raw data, or LaTeX source code into commercial Generative AI platforms. Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest and decline the invitation if a conflict exists.

8. Ethics and Misconduct

LNAA strictly adheres to COPE guidelines regarding suspected publication misconduct, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, data or proof fabrication, and authorship disputes. If misconduct is identified, the editorial office will initiate an investigation following COPE flowcharts.

9. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a formal appeal to the editorial office at lnaa@lettersinnonlinearanalysis.com. The appeal must provide a clear, point-by-point scientific rationale addressing the editorial feedback. The Editor-in-Chief will re-evaluate the manuscript, potentially consulting an independent editorial board member. The final decision on appeals is conclusive.

10. Record Keeping

The journal maintains secure digital archives of all submissions, reviewer reports, and editorial decisions. Reviewer identities remain strictly confidential.

Peer Review Timeline (Averages)

  • Initial Editorial Assessment: 3–5 days
  • Peer Review Period: 5–6 weeks
  • First Decision: 4–5 weeks
  • Revision Window: 3 weeks
  • Final Decision after Revision: 1–2 weeks

Contact

For any queries regarding the peer review process, please contact the editorial office at editorlnaa@gmail.com