Peer Review Process

Journal of Fractional Calculus and Applications(JFCA) is an interdisciplinary journal. The Journal publishes one Volume divided into two Issues per Year (one in January and the second in July). The Editor-in-Chief and publisher work in tandem to execute the plan that was set for the journal. The publisher provides the editors with tools and training to assist them in their important role.

Manuscripts are evaluated on the basis that they present new insight into the investigated topic and are likely to contribute to research progress. It is understood that all authors listed on a manuscript have agreed to its submission. The signature of the corresponding author on the letter of submission signifies that these conditions have been fulfilled. Received manuscripts will initially be examined by the JFCA  editorial office and those deemed to have insufficient grounds for publication may be rejected without external evaluation. Manuscripts not prepared in the advised style described will be sent back to the authors for correction. The authors will be notified with the reference number once the manuscript has been assigned to an Editor. The assigned manuscripts will be sent to 2-3 independent experts for scientific evaluation. The evaluation process commonly takes an average of 6 weeks.

Peer reviewers may make a recommendation about an article, but it is the editor who has the ultimate responsibility to make a final decision on whether to accept or reject an article for publication in a journal. 2 reviewers are invited for manuscript reviewing. In case of having only one acceptance, another reviewer will be invited, all steps in double double-blinded way.

  • Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
  • Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
  • Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others.
  • Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  • Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.