Instructions for Editors

The editor’s role

As an Editor for a Varad Publishing House journal, you play a pivotal role in maintaining the academic integrity and scientific quality of our publication. These instructions outline the standard operating procedures and expectations for the editorial board.

Initial quality assessment (pre-review)

Before assigning reviewers, the handling editor must perform a "desk evaluation" to ensure the manuscript meets basic criteria:

• Scope Alignment: Does the research fit within Applied or Theoretical Mathematical Sciences?
• Originality Check: Review the automated plagiarism report. IJATMS maintains a strict policy against unethical recycling of text or data.
• Formatting: Verify the paper meets the basic length (6–15 pages) and structural requirements.
• Scientific Merit: Does the paper present a clear hypothesis, rigorous mathematical proof, or significant computational advancement?

The peer review process

IJATMS employs a double-blind peer review system.

• Reviewer Selection: Assign at least two (preferably three) independent experts in the specific sub-field. Avoid reviewers with known conflicts of interest or those from the same institution as the authors.
• Timeline Management: Editors are responsible for ensuring reviewers meet their deadlines (typically 4–6 weeks). Send reminders if reports are overdue.
• Confidentiality: Maintain absolute confidentiality regarding the manuscript and the identity of the reviewers.

Decision-making framework

Once the review reports are received, the Editor must synthesize the feedback and make one of the following recommendations:

1. Accept: No further changes required. The paper is scientifically sound and well-presented.
2. Minor Revision: The paper is acceptable provided the authors address specific, smaller concerns (clarity, typos, minor proof corrections).
3. Major Revision: The paper has potential but requires significant work. This may involve correcting mathematical proofs, adding comparative data, or substantial rewriting. This typically requires a second round of review.
4. Reject: The work is technically flawed, lacks novelty, or is fundamentally out of scope. Provide a clear, polite explanation for the rejection.

Ethical responsibilities

• Impartiality: Decisions must be based solely on the scientific merit of the work, regardless of the authors' gender, race, seniority, or institutional affiliation.
• Conflict of Interest: If an editor has a personal or professional relationship with an author of a submitted manuscript, they must recuse themselves and ask the Editor-in-Chief to reassign the paper.
• Integrity: If errors or unethical behavior (e.g., data fabrication) are discovered post-publication, the editor must work with the Editor-in-Chief to issue a correction or retraction as per COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.

Final checklist for publication

Before a paper is sent to the production team:

• LaTeX Verification: Confirm if the author used the LaTeX template. If not, ensure the "Non-LaTeX Formatting Fee" has been communicated to the administrative office.
• APC Confirmation: Verify that the Article Processing Charge (APC) has been settled based on the page count and author's region (India vs. Foreign).
• Final Proofs: Review the final camera-ready version for any obvious typesetting errors.

Editorial Office Contact: ijatms.vph@gmail.com