Skip Navigation Links
Discontinuity, Nonlinearity, and Complexity

Dimitry Volchenkov (editor), Dumitru Baleanu (editor)

Dimitry Volchenkov(editor)

Mathematics & Statistics, Texas Tech University, 1108 Memorial Circle, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA


Dumitru Baleanu (editor)

Cankaya University, Ankara, Turkey; Institute of Space Sciences, Magurele-Bucharest, Romania


Peer-Review Policies
General Policy

Discontinuity, Nonlinearity, and Complexity adopts the traditional blind-review policy in which the reviewers’ names are concealed for submission author(s) for free submission. Each submitted manuscript is reviewed at least by two referees in appropriate fields. In addition, the editorial board members’ recommendation or established experts’ recommendation publication are welcome.

Editorial Procedures

Usually, one or more referees are selected by the editors for each manuscript. Referee reports are advisory to the editors, which are generally transmitted by the editors to the authors. So the referee reports should be written in a collegial manner. The editors may withhold or edit these reports for some reasons. In the judgment of the editors, if a paper is clearly unsuitable for Discontinuity, Nonlinearity, and Complexity, such a paper should be rejected without external review. However, authors of such rejected papers have the same right to appeal as do other authors.

  • Any resubmission of papers with revision should be accompanied by a summary of the changes made, and brief responses to all recommendations and criticisms. The rebuttal material will normally be forwarded to reviewers, and so should be written in a collegial manner. Remarks that authors wish to address solely to the editors should be clearly identified and separated from the summary and response. Authors should not send a version of the manuscript annotated to show the changes, as this can lead to confusion and delay in processing.
  • A manuscript may be sent to additional referees if warranted, either by request of the authors or by editorial decision. In most cases the new referee will be provided with previous correspondence on the manuscript, but not with the identity of the previous referee(s). However, members in Editorial board may receive this information.
  • Since the referee is usually best qualified to judge a paper, the author should direct his or her responses to the items raised in the referee report. In general, very long rebuttal letters explaining contentious points in a manuscript should be avoided in favor of clarifying alterations in the manuscript itself.
  • Papers are accepted for publication based on favorable recommendations by the referee(s). On the other hand, the editors can and will seek additional opinions when in their judgment such action seems called for. It is the policy of this journal that every effort be made to arrive at a decision on disposition within a reasonable time.
  • After acceptance of a manuscript, if further information that seems to warrant investigation is received, the editors will regard it as an obligation to reconsider their decision.
  • Authors should state whether the paper they submit has been previously considered for publication in any of the other journals. They should also provide information about other recent relevant unpublished work of theirs.
  • When a manuscript has several authors, one of them, the corresponding author, should be designated to receive and respond to correspondence from the editors. This designation can be changed upon notification of the editors. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to represent all those involved with the work reported.
Reviewer Selection Guideline

From the journal bylaws, reviewers for submitted manuscript of the Journal “Discontinuity, Nonlinearity and Complexity” are selected by the journal Editors and Publications. General guidelines for selection are:

  1. Potential reviewer must be nominated by the established scientists (or advisory board members) in the corresponding fields. Nominated reviewers must be approved by the editor of the Journal.
  2. Potential reviewers should be very good at the corresponding areas or fields. She/he should have a profound understanding of materials for reviewing, and s/he must be actively involved in research/teaching within the past two (2) years when nominated.
  3. Nominated Reviewer must demonstrate individual expertise in the field related to that Journal and Publication, with minimum requirement of
    • A related Doctoral Level Degree with at least two years of research experience in the related field.
    • S/he must be familiar with current development of respective scientific fields.
  4. Nominated Reviewer must present evidence to show his/her outstanding status in respective research field. Acceptable evidence includes:
    • At least two recent publications in internationally circulated Journals or Periodicals that are leading publications in the related scientific field;
    • A reference letter from independent personnel with plausible credentials, including but not limited to: tenured professors of university in United States; scientists from Research and Development departments of industry research; research personnel from government agencies and laboratories; and other accredited institutions of such nature.
    • Prior review experiences for other journals, periodicals and conferences held by accredited professional associations or societies.

Final decision of selection is the responsibility of Chief-in-Editor for the journal. Criteria provided in this guideline only serves as minimal requirement for the selection of a reviewer. Chief-in-Editor for the Journal “Discontinuity, Nonlinearity and Complexity” should consider other facts regarding its particular field and nominated reviewer in deciding whether to accept the nomination or not.