Mathfin Review Process

---
name: mathfin-review-process
description: Use to understand the Mathematical Finance review process: single-blind editor screening, associate-editor handling, referee expectations for novelty and rigor, and how to interpret review-stage signals.
---

# Review Process (mathfin-review-process)

## When to trigger

- Before submission, to understand the editor and referee lens
- After submission, to interpret review-stage status
- When deciding whether a theorem-first paper is ready for this journal

## Process facts

The accessible Wiley author-guideline text identifies **single-blind peer review**:
the editor screens submissions, suitable papers may be assigned to an Associate
Editor, outside referees may be consulted, and the Associate Editor prepares a
recommendation. The live editorial-board page should be checked before naming a
current editor because source metadata conflicted at access time.

## What reviewers evaluate

- Methodological novelty in financial mathematics
- Contribution to financial modelling, not only mathematical difficulty
- Correctness and self-contained completeness of proofs
- Precision of assumptions and notation
- Whether numerical experiments support theory rather than substitute for it
- Fit with the journal's stochastic-analysis and financial-modelling audience

## Desk-risk triggers

- Routine computational application to financial data
- Missing proof for a central claim
- Vague assumptions or unbounded generality
- Contribution framed as pure mathematics with no financial modelling payoff
- Poor LaTeX/source organization that makes review difficult

## Output format

```text
[Stage] editor screen / AE / referee / decision
[Main risk] novelty / rigor / fit / exposition
[Action] ...
[Next step] mathfin-submission or mathfin-rebuttal
```