Peer review

All papers submitted to the journal Discrete Analysis and Operations Research are subject to single-blind peer reviewing. This means that the reviewer knows the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who the reviewer is.

Anonymity of peer reviewing is an important condition that contributes to objective reviewing of articles and avoiding unnecessary arguments in the scientific community. In our journal we follow the principle that information about reviewers of all articles is confidential and not to be disclosure.

We assign a registration number to each manuscript submitted to the journal and put it in the journal database. Then the paper is examined in accordance with the requirements of the mainstream, standards, and authors' guide of the journal. If the manuscript meets the requirements, it is appointed to an appropriate member of the Editorial Board. The appointee chooses reviewers, supervises the recommended corrections of the article monitors, and presents the article at the meeting of the Editorial Board. The time for reviewing depends on the complexity and size of the article. Usually it does not exceed 3 months. Sometimes repeated reviews are requested.

A review can be written in any form, but should answer the following questions.
a) Are the results of the article new, relevant, and actual?
b) Do the title, abstract, and keywords match the content of the article?
c) Is the article duly organized, readable, understandable, logical, and correct with full proofs and no repetitions?
d) Does the bibliography fully reflect the current state of the problem being investigated?
e) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the article, what specific corrections and additions should be made by the author?
In conclusion, it is necessary to give one of the recommendations to the Editorial Board of the journal:

• accept in this form,
• accept with minor revision (without re-reviewing),
• substantial revision and re-reviewing is required,
• reject.

If a review is sent via e-mail, it is not necessary to send additionally a hard copy of the review by regular mail. It is enough to specify the name of the reviewer, his academic degree, academic rank, position, and affiliation in the e-mail, and to attach the review file without any information about the reviewer in it.

If a review contains recommendation to revise the article and comments on what is to be corrected, then the review is sent to the authors with a proposal to prepare a new version of the article in accordance with the reviewer's comments. In addition, the Editorial Board asks the authors to comment on the review. In the comments, the authors should list which points and in which way they corrected. If the authors prefer to leave some points unchanged (in an initial form), they should also argue for such a decision. A revised form of the article, as well as the response to the reviewer, is submitted to the editorial office by the authors and then sent for peer reviewing again.

The final decision on acceptance of the article for publication (or rejection on the submission) is made at a meeting of the Editorial Board. The basis for the discussion is all reviews to the article and a peer review by the appointed member of the Board. Moreover, the Editorial Board is guided by requirements applied to publications in Russian and foreign mathematical journals.

Rejected articles are not accepted for reconsideration.

The authors are informed about the decision of the Editorial Board. The favorable and unfavorable
reviews (possibly, abbreviated) are sent to the authors via e-mail.

All reviews are stored in the editorial office for 5 years.