Reviewers for Combinatorial Theory are asked to evaluate whether a submission significantly advances understanding of topics that lie within the scope of the journal.
The Editorial Board asks reviewers to assess of all submissions whether a submission is
- substantial and likely to have a lasting effect on the field,
- of broad interest to the combinatorics community, and
- clearly and carefully written.
The papers that are submitted via expository track must additionally be assessed on their readability to experts and non-experts alike.
Furthermore, referees may provide a list of individual items to which the authors are requested to respond.
The journal uses a doubly anonymous review process in which authors make some effort to omit information that identifies them to the reviewer.
The philosophy behind doubly anonymous refereeing is to reduce the effect of initial impressions and biases that may come from knowing the identity of authors.Our goal is to work together as a combinatorics community to select the most interesting, impactful, and well written mathematical papers within the scope of CT.
As a referee, you are not disqualified to evaluate a paper if you think you know an author’s identity (unless you have a conflict of interest, such as being the author’s advisor or student). The journal asks you not to do additional research to identify the authors.