Reviewer Guidelines

Combinatorial Commutative Algebra (CCA) conducts both internal (Handling Editors) and external peer review through quick opinions and referee reports by experts. All accepted papers will have at least one external referee report by experts in the field.

Reviewers for CCA are asked to evaluate whether a submission significantly advances understanding of topics that lie within the scope of the journal, broadly understood as the intersection of combinatorics and commutative algebra (e.g., monomial and toric ideals, Stanley–Reisner theory, arrangements, Lefschetz properties, homological and topological aspects, tropical and algebraic applications).

The Editorial Board asks reviewers to assess for all submissions whether a paper is:

  • Substantial and likely to have a lasting effect on the field,

  • Of clear interest to the combinatorial commutative algebra community, and

  • Clearly and carefully written, so that specialists can follow the arguments and appreciate the main ideas.

Referees are welcome to provide a list of specific points (mathematical, expository, or bibliographic) that the authors should address in revision.

CCA uses a singly-anonymous review process: referees see the authors’ names, but authors do not see the referees’ identities. The philosophy behind this process is to support a fair, expert evaluation of the work while protecting referees so that they can give candid, constructive feedback. Our goal is to work together as a community to select the most interesting, impactful, and well written papers within the scope of CCA.

As a referee, you should decline or consult the editor if you have a conflict of interest, such as:

  • a close personal relationship with an author,

  • recent or ongoing collaboration or shared research funding,

  • an advisor/advisee or postdoctoral mentoring relationship, or

  • employment in the same department (or similar unit).

If you are unsure whether a situation constitutes a conflict, please briefly describe it to the Handling Editor rather than making a unilateral decision.

We are deeply grateful to our referees for their time, care, and expertise, without which the journal could not exist.