Reviewers Guidelines

Manuscripts submitted to Numerik will undergo a double-blind review process. Reviewers are responsible for conducting a review that includes an analysis and assessment of the manuscript’s suitability for publication in Numerik. Reviewers are expected to consider the following points before conducting their review:

• Does the manuscript assigned to you fall within your area of expertise? If the manuscript does not sufficiently match your expertise, please inform the Editorial;
• Do you have sufficient time to review the manuscript? Please complete the review within two weeks of receiving the manuscript. If you are unable to meet this timeline and require additional time, please contact the Editorial;
• Are there any conflicts of interest with the manuscript? If you have any conflicts of interest with the manuscript, please contact the Editorial;
• Are there any indications of plagiarism in the manuscript? If you suspect any indications of plagiarism in the manuscript, please contact the Editorial immediately.

Review Process

• Title: Does it clearly describe the manuscript?;
• Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the manuscript?;
• Introduction: Does the introduction include the general background and research questions or hypotheses? The literature review should be included.;
• Template: Has the manuscript met the required journal writing guidelines?;
• Content: If the issue relating to the reviewed manuscript has previously been published, is the manuscript sufficient to warrant publication?; Does the manuscript contain novelty, profound knowledge, and interesting points to warrant publication?; Does the manuscript contribute to the development of science and knowledge?; Are the main theories or references used in line with the study?;
• Method: Does the author accurately describe how the data was collected?; Does the article answer the questions posed in the study?; Are new methods used? If new methods are used, are they explained in detail?;
• Results and Discussion: The results section should clearly present the author’s findings in a logical sequence. Reviewers should assess whether appropriate analytical methods have been applied;
• Conclusion: The conclusion should include a summary and recommendations. The summary should synthesize the answers to the research objectives or key findings without repeating the results or discussion. The recommendations should be aligned with the study’s conceptual framework or offer suggestions for improving future research;
• Tables and Figures: The tables and figures presented should correlate with the article’s content, and they should have clear sources of reference (such as books, journals, websites, or other references);
• References: Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is written in the reference list using the American Psychological Association (APA) style. The references used should be published within the last 10 years, consisting of 80% from journal articles and 20% from books, theses, or other relevant publications;
• Writing Style: Please write your text in good English that is interesting to read and easy to understand;
• Final Review: Assessment of the manuscript review should be written in the Review Form sent by the Editorial Secretary; Reviewers are required to fill in the table marked with asterisks; At the end of the review, reviewers are required to give one of the following recommendations: 1) Accepted; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication, 2) Accepted with minor revisions; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication once it is revised in response to the reviewers concerns, 3) Accepted with major revisions; means that substantive inadequacies in the manuscript, such as data analysis, the main theory used, and rewriting of paragraphs, need to be revised, 4) Rejected; means that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication or the given reviews relate to very basic issues; Upon completion of the review form, please fill in the reviewer’s identity in the corresponding columns.