Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

All research submissions published in LNAA undergo peer review. This usually involves review by at least two independent, expert peer reviewers.  This journal employs a single-blind peer review system. Consistent with the journal's objectives and mission, articles are generally evaluated through peer review by two independent academic specialists, and further assessments by experts from the policy sector may be requested to guarantee high-quality, influential publications that are academically sound and pertinent to policy:

 

1. Scope and Relevance

  • Content Fit: Ensure that the manuscript aligns with the scope of the journal, focusing on original research and significant findings in the field of nonlinear analysis.
  • Novelty and Impact: Evaluate whether the research contributes new knowledge, methodologies, or insights to the field. Manuscripts should present a clear and meaningful advancement in nonlinear analysis.

2. Technical Quality

  • Scientific Rigor: Verify that the research is methodologically sound, with clear hypotheses, well-designed experiments or analyses, and robust statistical methods.
  • Mathematical Precision: Check for accuracy in the mathematical derivations, proofs, and use of notation. Ensure that the results are presented clearly and logically.
  • Data and Results: Assess the adequacy of data presentation, including tables, figures, and supplementary materials. The results should be reproducible and well-supported by the data.

3. Structure and Presentation

  • Abstract and Introduction: The abstract should concisely summarize the research question, methods, results, and implications. The introduction should provide a clear background, stating the significance of the study and its objectives.
  • Clarity and Language: The manuscript should be well-organized and written in clear, professional English. Look for coherence, appropriate use of technical terms, and correct grammar.
  • Figures and Tables: Evaluate the quality and relevance of figures and tables. They should enhance the understanding of the text and not duplicate information.

4. Ethical Considerations (if any)

  • Originality and Plagiarism: Check for any indication of plagiarism or self-plagiarism. The work should be original and not previously published.
  • Conflicts of Interest: Report any potential conflicts of interest you might have with the authors or the content of the manuscript.
  • Ethical Approval: Ensure that any studies involving human participants, animals, or sensitive data have appropriate ethical approval and consent.

5. Review Process and Recommendations

  • Timeliness: Strive to complete your review within the agreed timeframe. If you require more time or cannot review the manuscript, notify the editor promptly.
  • Constructive Feedback: Provide detailed, constructive feedback to help authors improve their manuscript. Highlight both strengths and areas for improvement. Use respectful and professional language.
  • Recommendation: Based on your evaluation, select one of the following recommendations:
    • Accept as is
    • Minor revisions required
    • Major revisions required
    • Reject

6. Confidentiality

  • Treat the manuscript and all associated communications as confidential. Do not share or discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the editorial team.

7. Further Assistance 

  • If you have any questions or require clarification during the review process, please contact the editorial office.

8. Appeal

Appeals against editorial decisions require a formal appeal letter with point-by-point evidence supporting the appeal. In line with generally accepted standards, appeals are considered only on the basis of (i) reviewers’ potential technical errors in their assessment of the manuscript, (ii) new information or data that has come to light since submission of manuscript and (iii) evidence as to potential conflicts of interest of reviewers. Appeals against an editorial decision must be submitted within 14 days of the decision notice.

One appeal per manuscript is allowed. The Editor-in-Chief will consult the editorial team and where appropriate seek further advice from members of the Editorial Advisory Board. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final.

Appeal letters should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief and should be submitted to the editorial office