Peer Review Process

Recommendations for reviewers
The basis of any review is an objective assessment of the scientific novelty and originality of the work, its compliance with other established requirements.
The task of reviewers is to assess, according to the criteria and procedure described in the section “Reviewing Process” of the Journal’s Editorial Policy:
the possibility of accepting the article for publication without comments;
the need for minor or significant revision of the article;
rejection of the article.
The editorial board of the journal administers the article review process and requests that reviews be submitted through the review system on the Open Journal System – OJS platform.
Reviews should be critical, while reviewers should remember that derogatory language and personal criticism may be perceived as a reflection of bias or ulterior motives on the part of the reviewer.
The reviewer's obligations to the authors:
unbiased determination of the scientific value of the reviewed article, proper justification of her remarks;
timely submission of the review within the deadlines set by the editorial board. If the reviewer cannot do this, she must contact the editorial board on the journal platform as soon as possible;
avoiding personal comments or biased criticism, insults;
maintaining the confidentiality of the review, not transferring to third parties, not discussing with them information about the reviewed article without the permission of the editorial board.
The reviewer's obligations to the editors:
warning the responsible editor of any potential personal or financial conflict of interest (see "Policy on Conflict of Interest") that may arise;
refusing to review if there is a possibility of a conflict of interest that may affect the evaluation of the manuscript;
determining the scientific value, originality of the work and suggesting ways to improve it if necessary;
drawing the attention of the responsible editors to ethical problems, in particular, to significant similarities or coincidences of the manuscript with any other work of which the reviewer is aware.
The reviewer's obligations to readers:
ensuring compliance with the Journal's standards for positively reviewed articles;
protecting readers from incorrect or erroneous studies, or those whose reliability cannot be verified;
being attentive to any refusal by authors to cite the work of other scientists.
The comments of reviewers are extremely important for authors, as they help authors improve their articles. If the reviewer believes that the article does not meet specific evaluation criteria, she should justify her remarks and kindly suggest ways to improve it to the author(s).
If the reviewer believes that the authors should take into account additional literature, literature that is freely available in electronic format, she should indicate the sources and provide, if possible, references to them.
The reviewer should provide a general brief summary of the article, expressing an opinion on its level of novelty, originality, and importance/interest for society and science. The reviewer may (if desired) comment on any other issues (technical, data presentation, textual changes) that are not necessarily related to the specific criteria for evaluating the article.
The reviewer's confidential comments to the editorial board will not be available to the authors, but may be useful to the editor. It is desirable if reviewers note articles that, in their opinion, are particularly interesting, innovative, or significant for the Journal's audience. The Journal's editorial board will actively promote these articles on its online platforms.

Sample letter to the reviewer
Subject: Invitation to review a manuscript for the journal "In the World of Mathematics"
Dear Prof. [Last Name]!
I am writing to you on behalf of the editorial board of the scientific journal “In the World of Mathematics”. Our publication has received a manuscript of an article entitled: “[Article Title]”.
Given that the subject of the work directly relates to the area of ​​your scientific interests, we would be very grateful for your time and effort that you can devote to its professional review. Reviewing is an integral part of the publication process, and we highly appreciate your contribution to ensuring the high scientific standards of our publication.
To make a decision on review, the title and abstract of the article are added at the end of the letter.
The review model is double-anonymized, which ensures the independence of expert assessment.
The review period is 2 weeks from the moment of receiving access to the full text.
We would be grateful if you would respond as soon as possible whether you agree to review the article. If you do not have this opportunity or the topic of the article is not within your scientific interests, we would be very grateful for a recommendation of an expert who could help us.
If you accept our invitation to review this manuscript, you will receive access to it and the Recommendations for Reviewers in the reviewer profile of our journal's online submission and review system.
If you identify a potential conflict of interest during the review process, please inform us (see our conflict of interest policy here for more details).

If you discover any financial or professional relationships with the authors that may affect your objectivity, please notify the editorial office so that a reviewer can be replaced.

Please avoid requests to cite your own work unless they are critical to the scientific content of the article.

Your review will be confidential and will not be published without the express permission of the authors of the manuscript and the editor-in-chief of the journal. Reviewers are prohibited from using the authors' ideas until the article is officially published.

If you agree, you will receive access to the full text of the manuscript and the report form in the journal's electronic submission system (OJS). If you are unable to review, we would be grateful for the recommendation of another expert in this field.

We will be grateful for your response within 3 business days.

You can learn more about the editorial policy and requirements for reviewers on the journal's website: https://usm.knu.ua/index.php/usm .

Thank you in advance for your cooperation! We appreciate your contribution to the development of the publication and will provide the best conditions for our cooperation in the future.

Sincerely,

Editor-in-Chief of the journal In the World of Mathematics