Instructions for Reviewers of Articles Submitted to the Journal “Herald of the Institute of Mathematics of the National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic”
1. General Provisions
1.1. These Instructions establish the procedure for the peer review of manuscripts submitted to the Herald of the Institute of Mathematics of the National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Journal).
1.2. The purpose of peer review is to ensure the high scientific quality of published papers by providing an independent assessment of the originality, scientific significance, validity of the results, and compliance of manuscripts with the scope of the Journal.
1.3. Manuscripts are reviewed by independent experts holding an academic degree and possessing recognized expertise in the relevant field of mathematics.
1.4. Peer review is conducted in accordance with the principles of objectivity, scientific integrity, confidentiality, independence, and the absence of conflicts of interest, as well as the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
2. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers shall:
2.1. Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and solely on the basis of their scientific merit.
2.2. Treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. The manuscript and its contents shall not be disclosed, copied, or used for personal research or any other purpose before publication without the permission of the Editorial Board.
2.3. Promptly inform the Editorial Board of any actual or potential conflict of interest, including collaborative research, institutional affiliation, academic supervision, financial interests, or personal relationships with the authors. In such cases, the reviewer shall decline the review.
2.4. Provide constructive, well-reasoned, and evidence-based comments aimed at improving the scientific quality of the manuscript.
2.5. Avoid any discrimination based on nationality, citizenship, gender, age, language, religion, political opinion, institutional affiliation, academic position, or any other factor unrelated to the scientific content of the manuscript.
2.6. Notify the Editorial Board of any suspected plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification of results, unethical research practices, or other violations of publication ethics.
2.7. Complete the review within the timeframe established by the Editorial Board or promptly inform the Editorial Office if the review cannot be completed on time.
3. Review Criteria
The review shall include the following information:
- title of the manuscript;
- names of all authors;
- date the manuscript was received by the reviewer.
The reviewer should evaluate the following aspects.
3.1. Title
Determine whether the title accurately reflects the content and main results of the manuscript, whether it is sufficiently specific, and whether it duplicates the title of an existing publication.
Titles such as “On an Equation…” or “On Some Problems…” should generally be avoided.
If appropriate, the reviewer may recommend a revised title.
3.2. Mathematics Subject Classification (MSC)
Verify whether the appropriate Mathematics Subject Classification (MSC) codes are provided and whether they correspond to the subject matter of the manuscript.
3.3. Abstract and Keywords
Determine whether the manuscript contains abstracts and keywords in Kyrgyz, Russian, and English.
The three versions should be equivalent in meaning and use appropriate mathematical terminology.
3.4. References
Verify that the manuscript contains a properly formatted list of references in accordance with the Journal’s guidelines.
3.5. Citations
Ensure that every reference listed in the bibliography is cited appropriately within the text.
References without meaningful discussion or explanation should be avoided.
3.6. Presentation of Mathematical Results
Determine whether the manuscript presents its mathematical results in the form of definitions, lemmas, propositions, theorems, corollaries, or other standard mathematical statements.
Each statement should clearly specify all assumptions, known quantities, unknown quantities, mathematical objects, and spaces involved.
3.7. Correctness of Proofs
Verify that all principal results are supported by complete and mathematically rigorous proofs.
The reviewer should ensure that:
- no additional assumptions are introduced during the proof that are absent from the theorem statement;
- references to external theorems are accompanied by verification that all required assumptions are satisfied;
- proofs are self-contained and do not merely state “the proof is analogous to…” or “it follows from the above.”
3.8. Originality
Assess whether the reported results are original.
The reviewer should bear in mind that equivalent mathematical results may be formulated differently or may appear in different branches of mathematics.
3.9. Completeness of References
Determine whether the manuscript cites all significant prior publications relevant to the topic.
If important references are missing, the reviewer should recommend their inclusion.
3.10. Scientific Significance
Assess whether the results make a meaningful contribution to mathematics, applied mathematics, mathematical cybernetics, or related disciplines.
4. Review Recommendation
Upon completion of the review, the reviewer shall recommend one of the following:
- Accept for publication;
- Accept after minor revisions;
- Reconsider after major revisions;
- Reject.
If the recommendation is negative, the reviewer shall provide clear, objective, and evidence-based reasons, supported by references to the manuscript and, where appropriate, relevant published literature.
If the manuscript satisfies all requirements, the review should:
- identify the relevant field of mathematics;
- briefly summarize the principal scientific results;
- confirm compliance with these Instructions;
- recommend publication.
5. Review Format
The review shall include:
- full name of the reviewer;
- academic degree;
- academic title (if applicable);
- position and institutional affiliation;
- date of signing;
- signature of the reviewer.
The reviewer’s signature shall be certified by the reviewer’s institution where required.
6. Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents.
Reviewers shall not:
- disclose the manuscript to third parties;
- use unpublished ideas, methods, or results for personal advantage;
- copy, distribute, or discuss the manuscript without the permission of the Editorial Board.
7. Final Provisions
7.1. These Instructions are binding on all reviewers of the Journal.
7.2. Matters not covered by these Instructions shall be resolved by the Editorial Board in accordance with the Journal’s Editorial Policy and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
7.3. The Editorial Board reserves the right to obtain additional independent reviews whenever necessary to ensure the quality, originality, or ethical integrity of a submitted manuscript.
Executive Secretary: Z.A. Kadenova, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences