Principles and Publication Ethics

General Principles

MSP aims to cre­ate products that fur­ther, in­form, and in­spire math­em­at­ic­al and sci­entif­ic re­search. As such, we are com­mit­ted to pub­lish­ing only ori­gin­al, high-qual­ity work. MSP pro­tects and re­spects in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­erty, copy­right, au­thor­ship and primacy.

All our journ­als are peer re­viewed single-blind, un­der the guid­ance of our in­de­pend­ent ed­it­or­i­al boards. MSP and our ed­it­ors cham­pi­on free­dom of ex­pres­sion and aim to main­tain the in­teg­rity of the aca­dem­ic re­cord. Our highly qual­i­fied ed­it­or­i­al boards en­sure the ac­cur­acy, com­plete­ness and ori­gin­al­ity of every pub­lished art­icle, and strive for a fair and ef­fi­cient de­cision pro­cess. Our ed­it­ors are ac­count­able for everything pub­lished in their journ­als, and aim to con­stantly im­prove them.

The pur­pose of our pub­lic­a­tions is the ad­vance­ment of sci­ence. The de­cisions to ac­cept or re­ject a sub­mis­sion is based only on the ed­it­ors’ eval­u­ation of an art­icle’s im­port­ance, ori­gin­al­ity and clar­ity, with the help of peer-re­view re­ports, and without re­gard to au­thors’ na­tion­al­ity, coun­try of res­id­ence, in­sti­tu­tion­al af­fil­i­ation, gender, eth­nic ori­gin, re­li­gion, or polit­ic­al views.

MSP fosters ed­it­or­i­al in­de­pend­ence. Busi­ness needs and com­mer­cial con­sid­er­a­tions are nev­er al­lowed to com­prom­ise in­tel­lec­tu­al and eth­ic­al stand­ards. MSP nev­er in­ter­feres with the de­cision on which art­icles to pub­lish. Er­rors and in­ac­cur­ate or mis­lead­ing state­ments are cor­rec­ted promptly and with due prom­in­ence.


We con­demn pla­gi­ar­ism, and be­lieve that an au­thor is en­titled to re­ceive cred­it for their own in­tel­lec­tu­al cre­ation.

For ma­jor in­stances of pla­gi­ar­ism, MSP fol­lows the COPE guidelines. Spe­cific­ally, if an au­thor is sus­pec­ted of copy­ing an­oth­er’s work, ed­it­ors are ex­pec­ted to first in­form the au­thor of the ac­cus­a­tion, and so­li­cit a re­sponse; if the au­thor’s ex­plan­a­tion is un­sat­is­fact­ory, ed­it­ors will then re­ject the of­fend­ing pa­per, and also in­form the au­thor’s in­sti­tu­tion or em­ploy­er as to the nature of the of­fense. If the pa­per was already pub­lished by MSP be­fore the pla­gi­ar­ism was dis­covered, MSP will re­tract the art­icle and pub­lish a state­ment ex­plain­ing the re­trac­tion for the be­ne­fit of fu­ture read­ers.

Less ex­tens­ive in­stances of copy­ing, in mat­ters that are not cru­cial to the con­tent or con­clu­sions of the pa­per, may not ne­ces­sar­ily be re­por­ted to an au­thor’s in­sti­tu­tion; however, MSP ex­erts great ef­forts to avoid pub­lish­ing pa­pers in which this kind of copy­ing has oc­curred. If a pa­per that has been sub­mit­ted for con­sid­er­a­tion is found to have copied parts of its in­tro­duc­tion or sup­port­ing res­ults (for ex­ample) from an­oth­er source, the pa­per will not be ac­cep­ted for pub­lic­a­tion as-is. The pa­per may be re­jec­ted, or, at the dis­cre­tion of the ed­it­or, the au­thor may be re­quired to re­write, re­move, or quote with at­tri­bu­tion any copied ma­ter­i­al.

Ex­tens­ive copy­ing from one’s own works, though it does not con­sti­tute pla­gi­ar­ism, is sim­il­arly dis­cour­aged ex­cept to the ex­tent ne­ces­sary to help the read­er. Pub­lish­ing the same ma­ter­i­al in mul­tiple ven­ues is not good for the aca­dem­ic com­munity.

For Authors: Policies  
MSP and Open Access