Peer Review Policy

CU Journal of Nonlinear Fluid Mechanics operates a single-blind peer review system where the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors throughout and after the evaluation process. This mechanism ensures scientific integrity, objective critique, and the highest quality of published research. This policy outlines the standard procedures, timelines, ethical safeguards, and appeal channels governing our peer review workflow.

The selection of peer reviewers is based strictly on demonstrated expertise in the relevant subfield of nonlinear fluid mechanics. The Editorial Board identifies and invites qualified reviewers who possess an established track record of research and publication in pertinent domains. Invited reviewers evaluate their domain knowledge, potential competing interests, and current availability before accepting or declining the invitation. Once accepted, reviewers are expected to deliver thorough, constructive evaluations within the requested timeframe.

The Editorial Board actively governs the peer review workflow to guarantee efficiency, impartiality, and transparency. Editors assign manuscripts to appropriate domain experts, monitor review progress, and actively oversee the pipeline to minimize unnecessary delays. The median time from initial submission to the completion of the first review process is approximately four weeks. Authors receive clear, actionable, and constructive feedback from the editorial office to guide any required manuscript revisions. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the handling Editor and Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers' technical assessments and the overall scientific contribution of the work.

To preserve strict editorial independence and prevent bias, editors are recused from handling or deciding upon manuscripts that:

• They have authored or co-authored themselves.
• Have been authored by family members, close collaborators, or departmental colleagues.
• Relate to commercial products, software solvers, or services in which the editor holds a financial or personal interest.

Any such submissions are processed through the journal's standard peer review framework, with the evaluation completely isolated from the conflicted editor and their immediate research group.

The peer review process for special issues and article collections follows the same core procedures and standards as regular submissions. For these collections, a designated Guest Editor may manage reviewer invitations and provide initial decision recommendations to the Journal Editor. However, the Journal Editor continuously oversees the peer review workflow for all special issues to guarantee that the journal's rigorous standards of publishing ethics, quality, and responsiveness are strictly maintained. The Journal Editor retains ultimate responsibility for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of all articles within special collections.

Authors maintain the right to submit a formal request to appeal an editorial decision, provided the appeal meets all journal requirements and adheres to established scientific appeal standards. Appeals are considered only on the grounds of demonstrable technical misunderstandings, factual errors by reviewers, or procedural irregularities. Only one appeal request per submission will be evaluated, and the final decision rendered by the Editor-in-Chief on any appeal is definitive.