Peer Review Process


The pre-screening stage consists of two main steps: a technical pre-check performed by the Editorial Office and an editorial pre-check performed by an academic editor.

A. Immediately after submission, through the journal's OJS system-Submission Article ,  the journal’s Managing Editor will perform the technical pre-check to assess:

  • The overall suitability of the manuscript to the journal/section/Special Issue/Topic/Topical Collection;
  • Manuscript adherence to high-quality research and ethical standards;
  • Standards of rigor to qualify for further review.

B. The academic editor (i.e., the Editor-in-Chief in the case of regular submissions, the Guest Editor in the case of Special Issue submissions, the Topic Editor in the case of Topic submissions, the Collection Editor in the case of Topical Collection submissions, and an Editorial Board member in the case of a conflict of interest and regular submissions if the Editor-in-Chief allows) will be notified of the submission and invited to perform an editorial pre-check. During the editorial pre-check phase, the academic editor will assess the suitability of the submission with respect to the scope of the journal, as well as the overall scientific soundness of the manuscript, including the relevance of the references and the correctness of the applied methodology, evaluation through a similarity evaluation software(). The academic editors can decide to reject the manuscript, request revisions before peer review, or continue with the peer review process and recommend suitable reviewers. the Editor of the journal determines whether the submitted article conforms to the formats, guidelines and priority areas of the journal Sel.Mat, using a FORMAT, if it does not, the editor may reject the manuscript, communicating his decision to the author, and suggesting that it be submitted to another journal.

Guest Editors of Special Issues, Topic Editors of Topics, and Collection Editors of Topical Collections are not able to make decisions regarding their own manuscripts submitted to their Special Issue/Topics/Topical Collection, as this would constitute a conflict of interest. An Editorial Board member will instead be responsible for decision making. The Guest Editor/Topic Editor will be unable to access the review process except in their role as author. Similarly, Editors-in-Chief or other Editorial Board members are not able to access the review process of their manuscript except in their role as author.

Peer Review:

C. In the case of passing stages A and B, the manuscript is submitted to a peer review system, double blind (keeping anonymous the identity of the referee and the author(s)), at least two (02) external reviewers or evaluators(see recommendations to reviewers below ), which within 31 days report their opinion (according to the "Opinion Criteria," ).

Editorial Decision and Revision:

All the articles, reviews and communications published in Selecciones Matematicas go through the peer review process. The in-house editor will communicate the decision of the academic editor, which will be one of the following:

a)  Accept submission: It is suggested to accept the article in its current state for publication

b) Publishable with modifications: 
Publishable with minor modifications: It is suggested to accept the article after making the modifications indicated in the evaluation
The paper is in principle accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given five days for minor revisions.

c) Resubmit for Review: 
The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point by point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript is normally provided. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within a suitable time frame, and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments. If the required revision time is estimated to be longer than 2 months, we will recommend that authors withdraw their manuscript before resubmitting so as to avoid unnecessary time pressure and to ensure that all manuscripts are sufficiently revised.

d) Reject and Encourage Resubmission: 
If additional experiments are needed to support the conclusions, the manuscript will be rejected and the authors will be encouraged to re-submit the paper once further experiments have been conducted.

e) Reject: 
The article has serious flaws, and/or makes no original significant contribution. No offer of resubmission to the journal is provided.

All reviewer comments should be responded to in a point-by-point fashion. Where the authors disagree with a reviewer, they must provide a clear response.

Author Appeals:

Authors may appeal a rejection by sending an e-mail to the Editorial Office of the journal. The appeal must provide a detailed justification, including point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Editor's comments using an appeal form. Appeals can only be submitted following a “reject and decline resubmission” decision and should be submitted within three months from the decision date. Failure to meet these criteria will result in the appeal not being considered further. The Managing Editor will forward the manuscript and related information (including the identities of the referees) to a designated Editorial Board Member. The Academic Editor being consulted will be asked to provide an advisory recommendation on the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, further peer review, or uphold the original rejection decision. This decision will then be validated by the Editor-in-Chief. A reject decision at this stage is final and cannot be reversed.


Editors do not participate in decisions about manuscripts they have authored themselves. The participation of reviewers is anonymous and voluntary in all cases. Based on the reviewers' feedback, the Editor decides whether to publish the article, reject it, or provide suggestions to the author.

Reviewers may inform the Editor about substantial portions of the work already published or, if known, submitted for review to another publication, in order to avoid similarities with other published works.

If at least one reviewer suggests "Resubmit for review," the author is invited to make the changes within the timeframe set by the journal (always 15 business days). Failure to meet the deadline results in article rejection. In case of controversy, the Editor submits the manuscript to a third reviewer to make a decision.

Reviewer Selection:

The chosen reviewers should be specialists in the subject matter, have recognized academic prestige in the article's thematic area, possess research experience, and have articles published in indexed scientific journals. Additionally, they must not be members of SEL.MAT.

Reviewer Instructions:

• Confidentiality: All manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents. They should not be shown or discussed with others unless authorized by the publisher.

Objectivity: Reviews must be carried out objectively. Critics must express their opinions clearly with adequate supporting arguments. Personal criticism of the authors will not be accepted. 

Identify relevants published works:  The reviewrs must identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. They should also indicate whether the observations or arguments have been previously published. Any similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work must be reported to the editor.

• Review of methods: They must examine the adequacy and precision of the methods used in the study, as well as the interpretation of the results.

Structure and presentation of the manuscript: They must evaluate the structure of the manuscript, the clarity of expression, the integrity of the data and the presentation of information.

Conflict of interest statement: If reviewers have any potential conflicting interests with the research, authors, or institutions connected to the manuscript, they must notify the editor and opt out of the review process for that manuscript.

• Review time: Reviewers must complete their review in the time allotted by the editor. If they cannot meet this deadline, they must notify the editor and decline the invitation to review.

Constructive feedback: Although reviewers can recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript, the final decision rests with the editors. Reviewers should provide feedback that helps authors improve their work, with sufficient objectivity to allow authors to take action to improve points noted.

Ethical evaluation: Reviewers must consider and comment on possible ethical problems in the research. If misconduct is suspected, reviewers should inform the editor.

 . Fill out the evaluation letter and upload to the OJS <evaluation>

Production and Publication:

Once accepted, the manuscript will undergo professional copy-editing, proofreading by the authors, final corrections, pagination, and, publication on the website.

Article Withdrawal:

If the author or authors decide to withdraw the article at any stage of the article evaluation, they must request it by sending an email to, including all co-authors involved in the article in cc.