Skip Navigation LinksHome > Journals > Discontinuity, Nonlinearity, and Complexity > Peer-Review Policies
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

The journal “Discontinuity, Nonlinearity, and Complexity (DNC)” 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.

Submission Preparation

For a manuscript submitted to DNC for publication consideration, the following guidelines should be for the authors to follow.

  • From the journal aims and scope, authors should follow manuscript requirements to prepare papers.
  • Authors should clearly state that the paper submitted to DNC has not been considered fully and partially for publication in any of the other journals previously and currently.
  • If a manuscript has several authors, one of them should be designated as a corresponding author to receive and respond to correspondence from the editors.
Editorial Process Procedures

Usually, two 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. 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 DNC, such a paper should be rejected without any external review. However, authors of such rejected papers have the same right to appeal as do other authors.

The following guidelines for revised manuscript revision and peer-reviews are given for editors, associate editors and authors to follow.

  • Any resubmission of papers with revision should be accompanied by a summary of the changes made, and brief responses to all comments. The rebuttal material written in a collegial manner will normally be forwarded to reviewers. Remarks that authors wish to address solely to the editors should be clearly identified and separated from the summary and response.
  • The author should direct his or her responses to the items raised in the referee report because the referee is usually best qualified to judge a paper.
  • A revised manuscript may be sent to additional referees if necessary, 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).
  • Papers are accepted for publication based on positive recommendations by the referee(s). On the other hand, the editors can and will seek additional opinions to arrive at a decision on disposition within a reasonable time.

The following guidelines for final production and signed copyright forms are given for authors to follow.

  • After accepted, the authors should follow the journal template to prepare final version for publication. The final version with the corresponding signed copyright form and the publication option form should be submitted to the L&H Scientific Publishing LLC for production.
  • Once the proofreading of manuscript is received from the typesetting, the authors should complete the correction of the proofreading in 48 hours.
Reviewer Selection Guidelines

All submissions for publication consideration are first assessed by the Editor. Upon a favorable initial assessment, manuscripts are subject to peer-review by independent, anonymous expert referees, and the referees are identified from the General Guidelines for reviewer selection as in the DNC Bylaws of Editorial Policies and Practices. For a manuscript peer-review, the selection of review referees should follow the following rules:

  1. Potential reviewers must be selected by the editors or associate editors.
  2. Potential reviewers should be active researchers with a profound understanding of materials for reviewing in the corresponding areas or fields.

The guidelines for new reviewer selections in the review systems are given as follows.

  1. A new reviewer should be nominated by editorial board members or established scientists.
    • S/he should have a Ph.D. 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.
  2. The expertise evidence of a nominated new reviewer includes:
    • At least two recent publications in the related fields on prestigious Journals or Periodicals.
    • A reference letter from independent established researchers in the fields.
    • Prior review experiences for other journals, periodicals and conferences in the related fields.
  3. The nominated new reviewers getting into the submission system must be approved by the Journal editors and associate editors.