Ethical charter

Authors guarantee that their proposed article is original, and that it infringes no moral intellectual property right of any other person or entity. Authors guarantee that their article proposal has not been published previously, and does not rely, in part or in whole, on previously published work.

Authors commit to not simultaneously submitting the proposal to another publication.

The evaluation process is based on single peer review (only the authors’ names are known).

Submissions to DMTCS undergo a scientific peer review process that is initiated and organized by an editor. The first stage of this review process is to decide whether or not the submission fits into the scope of DMTCS and to estimate if there are chances for it to be accepted.

The purpose of the reviewing process is then to eventually improve the submission, correct flaws and come to a final decision of whether or not the manuscript is accepted for publication.

The reviewing is done by anonymous referees, who provide their feedback to the authors and the editors via detailed reports. These reports must in particular clearly state the decision that is proposed and give the reasons why the referee has come to her or his conclusion.

For rejection, a single but well-justified report is sufficient.

For acceptance, two well-justified reports or one report and a well-founded opinion of the editor is necessary.

All submitted articles are checked for plagiarism using the software Similarity Check via Crossref.

Any form of plagiarism implies rejection of the article; this includes but is not limited to:

• outright plagiarism (presenting the work of other researchers, whole or in part, as one's own, either verbatim or rephrased);
• self-plagiarism (presenting one's own previously published work, whole or in part, as a novel);
• deliberate replication of already known results and concepts, whole or in part, under new names or in new notation, without an appropriate reference and justification.

Authors shall disclose any potential conflict of interest, whether it is professional, financial or other, to the journal's Editor, if this conflict could be interpreted as having influenced their work. Authors shall declare all sources of funding for the research presented in the article.

Each article submission is considered impartially, and its merits are judged without distinction of gender, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnic origin, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the authors.

The funding sources that authors have received to conduct the research valorized in the scientific production are explicitly mentioned in the article.

The journal does not require any submission or publication fees.

Authors guarantee that their article proposal does not contain defamatory, hateful, fraudulent, or knowingly inaccurate statements.

Authors guarantee that they appropriately cite all publications used in their work.

The use of generative AI tools used in the creation of the manuscript should be disclosed at the time of submission in an AI Disclosure statement placed at the end of the paper. The disclosure should identify the tool(s) used and indicate which parts of the submission were generated or materially influenced. In particular, the authors should disclose if any AI tools contributed to the research or to the mathematical content of the manuscript.

The application of technology must be done under human supervision and control, and authors must carefully review and edit the output. Human authors should completely understand all the proofs and other mathematical content of the paper, and they retain full responsibility for the correctness, originality, attribution, and presentation of the work. AI-assisted technologies should not be credited as authors or co-authors.

Authors may use the following formats (if applicable):

1. AI Disclosure: We used [Tool Name] to assist with [Brief Description of Use]. The tool materially affected [Sections X and Y]. We verified the correctness and originality of all content including references.
2. AI Disclosure: We used [Tool Name] to enhance readability / for spell checking / for typesetting / for reference management / to help with the drawing of Figure X. No AI tools have contributed to the mathematical content of the manuscript.
3. AI Disclosure: We did not use any AI tools in the creation of this manuscript.

An appeal of an editorial decision will only be considered if it is based on evidence that either (1) an editor or reviewer made a significant factual error/a major misunderstanding of a manuscript, or (2) the integrity of the editorial decision-making process was compromised. To appeal a decision, the author is invited to directly contact the Editors in Chief.

If the authors discover an error in your published article, please contact the Editors in Chief immediately. Together with the Handling Editor, they will determine whether a correction should be made and what form it should take.

Where an allegation of research misconduct is made to the journal, the journal’s first concern is the integrity of content it has published. Any publication found to include fraudulent or unethical research or research which violates the journal’s policies may be retracted or have an appropriate correction or expression of concern issued.