SMARTH: Journal of Mathematics Education and Learning applies a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review system to ensure fairness, objectivity, academic integrity, and high publication quality. In this process, the identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review. Manuscripts are evaluated solely on their originality, methodological rigor, scientific contribution, educational significance, and relevance to mathematics education.

• Confidentiality: The identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the review process.
• Objective Evaluation: Manuscripts are assessed based on originality, research quality, methodology, validity of findings, and contribution to mathematics education.
• Independent Review: Reviewers conduct impartial evaluations free from personal or institutional bias.
• Publication Ethics: The review process follows international publication ethics and the principles of COPE.
• Editorial Transparency: Editorial decisions are accompanied by anonymous reviewer comments and recommendations.

Peer Review Workflow

1. Initial Technical Screening
   The Editorial Office checks compliance with the journal template, submission requirements, publication ethics, and the journal's scope.
2. Editorial Assessment
   The Editor evaluates originality, relevance, scientific quality, and suitability for peer review.
3. Reviewer Assignment
   Eligible manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field of mathematics education.
4. Double-Blind Peer Review
   Reviewers assess the manuscript and provide constructive comments together with an editorial recommendation.
5. Author Revision
   Authors revise the manuscript in response to reviewers' and editors' comments within the specified timeframe.
6. Final Editorial Decision
   The Editor makes the final decision after considering all reviewer reports and the revised manuscript.
7. Production and Publication
   Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, DOI registration, and online publication as Open Access articles.

Editorial Decisions

• Accept Submission
• Revisions Required
• Resubmit for Review
• Decline Submission

Review Timeline

Reviewers are expected to respond to review invitations within 7 days and complete the review within 14–21 days. The overall editorial timeline may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the revision process.