Journal of Applied Data Analysis and Modern Stochastic Modelling

Review Policy

Journal of Applied Data Analysis and Modern Stochastic Modelling

The Journal of Applied Data Analysis and Modern Stochastic Modelling is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and ensuring the quality, objectivity, and academic integrity of all published articles. To maintain these standards, the journal operates a strict peer-review system managed by the Editorial Board.

1. Peer Review Model (Double-Blind)

This journal employs a double-blind peer-review process. This means that:

• The identities of the authors are entirely concealed from the reviewers throughout the review process.

• The identities of the reviewers are entirely concealed from the authors.

Authors must ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not reveal their identity (e.g., removing author names, affiliations, and explicit self-references from the main text and file properties).

2. Reviewer Allocation and Requirements

• Expert Evaluation: Every submitted manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is assigned to a minimum of three (3) independent reviewers who specialize in the specific topic, methodology, or domain area of the paper.

• Selection Criteria: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication history in relevant fields (such as statistical data analysis, stochastic processes, and predictive modeling), and absence of conflicts of interest.

3. The Peer Review Process

The journal follows a structured step-by-step workflow to guarantee a fair and thorough evaluation:

1. Initial Editorial Desk Review: Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Managing Editor conducts a preliminary assessment to verify alignment with the journal’s scope, compliance with submission guidelines, and basic scientific merit. Manuscripts are also screened for plagiarism during this stage.

2. Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts meeting the baseline criteria are anonymized and sent to at least three specialized external reviewers.

3. Evaluation Framework: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

   • Originality and significance of the contribution.

   • Methodological rigor (validity of data analysis techniques and stochastic models).

   • Clarity of presentation, logical structure, and language proficiency.

   • Ethical compliance and proper citation of existing literature.

4. Editorial Decision: Once a minimum of three comprehensive review reports are received, the Handling Editor synthesizes the feedback and makes a formal recommendation. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

4. Possible Outcomes

Authors will receive one of the following editorial decisions along with the anonymized feedback from the three reviewers:

• Accept As Is: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further modifications.

• Minor Revisions: The authors must address minor clarifications, technical adjustments, or stylistic corrections before final acceptance.

• Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant revisions, which may include re-analyzing data, restructuring the stochastic framework, or expanding the literature review. Revised manuscripts are typically sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation.

• Reject: The manuscript is not accepted due to fundamental flaws, lack of novelty, or being outside the scope of the journal.

5. Confidentiality and Ethics

• Confidentiality: All materials submitted to the journal, including the manuscript, correspondence, and review reports, are treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from sharing, copying, or utilizing the unpublished data or ideas contained in the manuscript.

• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must immediately disclose any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal relationships with authors or competing projects) to the editorial team and recuse themselves from the review process if necessary.

• Ethical Standards: The journal strictly follows the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical misconduct identified by reviewers will be thoroughly investigated.