We are strongly committed to promoting the highest ethical publication practices and expect all submitting authors to uphold the high standards of publication ethics set out by the Commission on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any cases of ethical misconduct will be dealt with following the COPE guidelines.

Authors

● The submission of the manuscript implies that it is the work of the Author(s), it has not been published before, and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

● Individual contributions of each co-author should be clearly specified, and the manuscript should be approved by all co-authors.

● The Author(s) must ensure that all data in the submitted article are real and authentic.

● It is their responsibility to ensure that no participants were harmed, physically or mentally, during the research, which results in the article, and that the personal details of the participants were fully anonymized. This applies to both textual citations and images.

● Publications that have been influential in determining the research work and the reported results should be properly cited. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

● It is also their responsibility to check that all copyrighted material within the article has permission for publication.

● Authors should ensure that every manuscript submitted to the journal has been read and corrected for clarity, grammar, and spelling.

On acceptance, (the) Author(s) will be obliged to sign a legally binding form confirming that the above standards have been met.

Editors

● Editors hold full authority to reject/accept an article,
● preserve the anonymity of reviewers and
● have no conflict of interest concerning articles they reject/accept.

All submissions are subject to peer review and editorial control of length and style.
If the Editors evaluate the manuscript to be worthy of consideration for publication in Teaching Mathematics and Computer Science, it will be sent to two reviewers. If the opinions of the two Reviewers differ significantly, the Editors will also seek the opinion of a third Reviewer. After the manuscript has been reviewed, a decision is sent to the Corresponding Author, along with recommendations made by the referees. All manuscripts are reviewed as rapidly as possible, but the review process usually takes at least 3 months.
The Editorial Team is committed to a strict policy against plagiarism and false data.
Whenever it is recognized that a published paper contains a significant inaccuracy, such as rearranging the authorship order, adding important information to the text, changing some data, or replacing an entry in the reference list, it will be corrected promptly using the Erratum form.
Suppose it turns out that an already published article was unsuitable for publication for some well-based ethical reason. In that case, it will be retracted in an identifiable way to readers and indexing systems.

Reviewers

● Reviewers hold the responsibility to be objective in their judgements,
● have no conflict of interest concerning the research, the authors, and/or the research funders,
● point out relevant published work which is not yet cited by the author(s) and
● treat the reviewed articles confidentially.

The Reviewer and the Author remain anonymous throughout the “double-blind” review process.
Reviewers are selected according to their expertise in their fieldwork. Submitted papers are reviewed by at least two independent Reviewers.
The primary task of reviewers is to assist the editorial team in making editorial decisions. Reviewers are requested to evaluate whether the manuscript has already been published in another journal, is theoretically and methodologically sound, contains results that are clearly presented and support the conclusions and is the bibliography appropriate. Reviewers are encouraged to use the review form.

Reviewers judge each paper based on the following scale:
1. acceptance is decidedly recommended;
2. acceptance is possible with minor modification;
3. acceptance is possible with major modification;
4. acceptance is not recommended.