《當(dāng)代數(shù)學(xué)分析期刊》(亞美尼亞科學(xué)院)是亞美尼亞著名的函數(shù)理論學(xué)派的研究刊物，今天，該期刊繼續(xù)了該學(xué)派在一般分析領(lǐng)域的傳統(tǒng)。埃里溫的一群非常多產(chǎn)的數(shù)學(xué)家在以下領(lǐng)域?yàn)檫@本領(lǐng)先的數(shù)學(xué)雜志做出了貢獻(xiàn):實(shí)分析和復(fù)分析;近似;邊值問題;積分與隨機(jī)幾何;微分方程;概率;積分方程;代數(shù)。同行評(píng)審《當(dāng)代數(shù)學(xué)分析雜志》是一份同行評(píng)議的期刊。我們使用單一的盲同行評(píng)審格式。我們的評(píng)審團(tuán)隊(duì)包括來自50多個(gè)國家的50多位專家。2018年從提交到首次評(píng)審的平均周期為90天，從首次評(píng)審到驗(yàn)收的平均周期為40天。2018年投稿退稿率為75%。接受發(fā)表文章的最終決定由同行評(píng)審人員和編輯委員會(huì)做出。被邀請(qǐng)的審稿人因利益沖突，認(rèn)為不符合審稿條件或者不能審稿的，應(yīng)當(dāng)及時(shí)通知審稿人，并予以拒絕。審稿人應(yīng)以一種合理合理的方式清晰地闡述自己的觀點(diǎn)，這樣作者才能利用審稿人的觀點(diǎn)來完善稿件。必須避免對(duì)作者的個(gè)人批評(píng)。評(píng)論者應(yīng)該顯示發(fā)表的一篇評(píng)論(我)任何相關(guān)的工作沒有被引用的作者,(2)任何已報(bào)道在以前的出版物和沒有適當(dāng)?shù)膮⒖蓟蛞?(2)任何實(shí)質(zhì)性相似或重疊與其他手稿(發(fā)表或未發(fā)表)的個(gè)人知識(shí)。

Journal of Contemporary Mathematical Analysis (Armenian Academy of Sciences) is an outlet for research stemming from the widely acclaimed Armenian school of theory of functions, this journal today continues the traditions of that school in the area of general analysis. A very prolific group of mathematicians in Yerevan contribute to this leading mathematics journal in the following fields: real and complex analysis; approximations; boundary value problems; integral and stochastic geometry; differential equations; probability; integral equations; algebra.PEER REVIEWJournal of Contemporary Mathematical Analysis is a peer reviewed journal. We use a single blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes over 50 experts from 50 countries. The average period from submission to first decision in 2018 was 90 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 40 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2018 was 75%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Peer Reviewers and the Editorial Board.Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified or unable to review the manuscript due to the conflict of interests should promptly notify the editors and decline the invitation. Reviewers should formulate their statements clearly in a sound and reasoned way so that authors can use reviewer’s arguments to improve the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors must be avoided. Reviewers should indicate in a review (i) any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors, (ii) anything that has been reported in previous publications and not given appropriate reference or citation, (ii) any substantial similarity or overlap with any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.