Official Journal of the Association for Women in Mathematics

La Matematica is an international peer-reviewed journal featuring high-quality research from all areas of the mathematical sciences. It is dedicated to publishing research papers describing novel mathematical ideas and tools, survey articles on current trends that appeal to a wide range of readers, short communications and reviews.  La Matematica seeks to encourage innovation, engagement and interdisciplinary research collaboration.  As the flagship journal of the Association for Women in Mathematics, our goal is to support the flourishing of all mathematicians by adopting equitable practices in STEM publishing.

La Matematica seeks to publish a variety of article types in all fields of mathematics: pure, applied, and computational. We will include work on a wide spectrum of topics, ranging from mathematics education and the history of mathematics to mathematically-grounded work in data science, computer science, and statistics. Occasionally we will also publish special thematic issues.

  • Publication of high-quality research from a broad range of the mathematical sciences
  • Self-contained articles accessible to mathematicians outside the field
  • Doubly-anonymous review process
  • Constructive reviews
  • Quick reviewer turn-around time

Editors-in-Chief: Donatella Danielli, Kathryn Leonard, Michelle Manes, Ami Radunskaya

La Matematica publishes full-length research articles and short communications that describe new theoretical results and innovative practical applications.  Reports on computational studies and case studies are accompanied by relevant software and data.  Survey articles, written in a clear and inviting style, appeal to readers from all backgrounds, encouraging trans-disciplinary engagement with mathematical ideas.  La Matematica also publishes book reviews to help our readers navigate the array of  new publications.

Watch the video of the La Matematica Launch Panel  on May 25, 2021.

Doubly-Anonymous Refereeing

Multiple studies1 have shown that anonymizing the refereeing process to the greatest extent possible fosters impartiality and leads to more equitable outcomes. In doubly-anonymous2 refereeing of papers, authors submit manuscripts with identifying information removed; this includes authors’ names and institutions, funding information, acknowledgements, and sometimes certain references. The effect is to reduce implicit bias, meaning both unconscious bias against certain groups but also the “halo effect” of famous names and institutions.

In mathematics, it is common for authors to post their work on arXiv in advance of, or concurrently with, journal submission. There are many good reasons to support this practice, and it is not at odds with doubly-anonymous refereeing. La Matematica allows authors to decide whether to post their work on arXiv while it is under review. To facilitate this:

  • We aim for quick turnaround times (about two months) for all submissions, so that authors who chose to keep their work completely anonymous by not posting it on arXiv have a minimal delay.
  • We ask referees to respect the goals and process of doubly-anonymous refereeing by (1) not attempting to identify the authors before completing the review, and (2) notifying the editor if they know or become aware of the authors’ identities prior to completing the review.

A referee may think that they can identify an article’s author by the writing style or by the subfield, but this is at best a guess and should not be taken too seriously. In the worst case scenario that it is impossible to find a referee who is not already certain of the authorship of the paper in question, the process becomes the familiar singly-anonymous process used by the majority of mathematics journals. Nothing is lost in our attempt to increase equity, and potentially there is a great deal to be gained.

In everything we do, our goal at La Matematica is to build an equitable mathematics community, one that is dedicated to the flourishing of all mathematicians. To this end, we will collect data from authors, reviewers, and editors on how the process is working; and we will use that data to help us determine if our review process is functioning as we hope it will. We will continue to evaluate our processes and adapt them as necessary to best serve the community. We will remain flexible and responsive in our practices, listening to researchers on best practices in publishing and to the mathematics community that we serve.

1. For example:;jsessionid=05AA0B34451B35C83D8323B455D6AF74?sequence=1 and

2. We use this term rather than the (currently) more common term using ableist language. We are sure that publishers and the academic community will adopt this less exclusionary language soon.

Guidelines for Editors

Every submission should be acknowledged within a short period of time. The acknowledgement will provide the author with an expected time for an update on the paper’s status. Editors will make arrangements for acknowledgement when they are traveling or unable to send acknowledgement themselves.

Submissions that are judged unsuitable for publication without being refereed (either by the editor’s decision, or after a quick opinion is received) will be declined in a timely fashion. A justification of the rejection should be given to the author with suggestions of alternate journals when appropriate.

Editors will ask for a quick opinion, to be received within 15 days, before requesting in-depth reviews.

If the quick opinion recommends the paper be refereed, editors will seek two referee reports. (one suggested by author, other chosen independently). Editors will respect the author’s wishes of excluded referees, if this information is provided.

Editors will ask referees to respond to the invitation within 7 days. If no response is received within 7 days, editors will seek another referee.

Each referee who agrees to review a manuscript will be asked to send their report within 60 days.

An editor will remind the referee near the target date for a report.

Every referee’s report will be acknowledged. Decisions will be communicated promptly to authors.

An editor (or group of editors) will have a specific procedure to decide when to choose an alternative referee in case of loss of anonymity or other disruption in order to restart the refereeing process. An editor will write to the author when the refereeing process is restarted with an explanation and providing a new expected time for an update on the paper’s status.

Editors will request and enforce that the referee’s reports provide sufficient basis for the decision, with reports designed to improve the submission rather than to criticize it.

Editors are expected to treat all potential authors with reasonable professional courtesy, responding promptly to submissions and making decisions based on the merit of the paper as well as its suitability to the journal.

Instructions for Reviewers

Remember that your review serves two purposes: advice to the journal on whether to accept the paper and why, and advice to the authors on the quality of the paper and ways it could be improved. Please write honestly but also kindly. Write your comments with a goal of improving the submission rather than merely criticizing it. If you recommend rejecting an article, please be specific about its shortcomings and provide some positive comments for the authors to the extent that you can do so.

Your review should:

  1. Provide an overall assessment of the manuscript: one sentence. Examples:
    “This is a well-written expository survey of an active area of research, and it fills a gap in the literature.”
    “This result answers a question that has been puzzling number theorists for a decade.”
    “This analysis provides a reliable way to optimize treatment strategies for pest infestations.”
  2. Provide a brief summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript: a few sentences. This is particularly important if there are reasons why the manuscript should not be published in its current state.

Offer more detailed assessment of the manuscript with major changes and requests for improvement (if any) first and then minor changes.

Please be sure that your report answers the following questions and makes specific requests for improvement when the answer is not positive:

  1. Are the introduction and conclusion understandable to a general audience?
  2. Is the question addressed clearly stated?
  3. Is the result original? (Note that La Matematica does accept high-quality survey papers, so this is not necessary for acceptance.)
  4. Can the organization of the manuscript be improved?
  5. Can the writing be improved?

We do ask for your opinion as an expert on the significance of the result or exposition to the field and to mathematics. In an effort to reduce bias as much as possible, please avoid terms that can serve as gatekeepers for certain areas and approaches (for example, “central” or “interesting”) and be aware of using your own mathematical taste to represent that of the entire community (for example, viewing theorems as more valuable than computational results). Instead, be specific about potential interest of the work to a broad audience. For example:

Are there new techniques employed, or are known results used in new and creative ways?
Is the argument particularly delicate or complex? Or is it a surprisingly elementary argument that sheds new light on a problem?
Does it suggest future directions, either new problems to ask or new ways to use the techniques involved?
Does it bridge fields or contribute to fields beyond mathematics?