Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Methema aims to facilitate and promote the dissemination of scholarly information on research and development in the field of Mathematics and Mathematics Education. The articles published in this journal can be the result of research, conceptual thinking, ideas, innovations, best practices, and book reviews.The scopes of this journal include the following topic areas:

- Mathematics Teaching and Learning
- Mathematics Curriculum Development
- Teacher Education in Mathematics
- Mathematics Educational Technology

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The submitted manuscript is first reviewed by an editor. It will be evaluated in the office whether it is suitable with our focus and scope or has a major methodological flaw. These manuscript will be sent to two reviewers anonymously (Single Blind Peer Review). Reviewers' comment are then sent to corresponding author to take the necessary actions and responses. The decision of the revised manuscript will be then evaluated in editorial board meeting, the final decision of whom are sent to the corresponding author.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Plagiarism Checker

Plagiarism screening will be conducted by Mathema using Plagiat Detector. If the percentage of plagiarism is more than 20%, article is returned to author to be revised.

 

Publication Frequency

This journal is published twice a year (January and July)

January Edition:
Delivery deadline: November 30th
Confirm the review results: December 30th
Published Journal: January 31st

July Edition:
Delivery deadline: May 30th
Confirm the review results: June 30th
Published Journal: July 31st

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

To maintain the quality of the manuscript and avoid publishing/plagiarism violations in the publishing process, the editorial board establishes the ethical scientific publication of the Mathema. This publication ethics rule applies to authors, reviewer, and editors.

Section A: Publication and authorship 

  1. All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two national reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
  2. Review process are Single Blind Peer Review.
  3. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
  4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
  5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  8. No research can be included in more than one publication.

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

  1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
  2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
  3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. 
  4. Authors must participate in the peer review process. 
  5. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  6. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
  7. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
  8. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  9. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
  10. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors. 

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

  1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
  3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
  4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  6. Reviewers should not review 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. 

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities

  1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
  2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  6. Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.
  7. Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers’ importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication’s scope.
  8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason. 
  9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers. 
  10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to nationally accepted ethical guidelines.
  11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
  14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.

 

Retraction

The papers published in the Mathema will be consider to retract in the publication if :

  1. They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabri-cation) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
  2. the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission orjustification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
  3. it constitutes plagiarism
  4. it reports unethical research

The mechanism of retraction follow the Retraction Guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) which can be accessed at https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf.