Focus and Scope

MUST: Journal of Mathematics Education, Science, and Technology mainly focuses on discussing mathematics education, science and technology related to mathematics from research result or literature studies. Detailed scopes of articles accepted for submission MUST are

  • Mathematics Education: Design Research, Development Research, Mathematics Ability, Realistic Mathematics Education.
  • Mathematics: Algebra, Analysis, Applied Mathematics, Discrete Mathematics and Combinatoric, Mathematical Modeling, Optimization, Systems and Controls.
  • Statistics and Stochastics.
  • Computational and Computer Science.


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Publication of articles in MUST is dependent solely on the scientific validity as judged by our editors and/or reviewers, who will also assess whether the writing is comprehensible and whether the work represents a useful contribution to the field.

Initial evaluation of manuscripts

The Editor will first evaluate manuscripts submitted. At this stage, the Editor performs a plagiarism test using Turnitin with a maximum plagiarism limit of 20%. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the MUST. Manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to reviewers.

Type of peer review

The manuscripts will be reviewed by at least 2 (two) peer reviewers. The method is double-blind peer review. The editor ensures that every process of reviewing, the author does not know the reviewers and vice versa. The time required for the review process is 4 (four) weeks after the article accepted by the reviewers.

Review reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • Is original by stating the objectives clearly
  • Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
  • Is methodologically sound
  • Has results/findings which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
  • Correctly references previous relevant work


Reviewers advise the editor to accept or reject the article. The editors will reach a decision based on reviewer's reports, and where necessary, they will consult with members of the editorial board. Editor's decision is final.


Publication Frequency

MUST publishes articles twice in a year i.e, in July and December each volume


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.



MUST Journal stores back issues and current articles following LOCKSS idea of keeping lots of copies of our items on several servers to keep them safe. Archives are stored in Universitas Muhammadiyah Surabaya's repository server and it's digitally submitted to Indonesian National Library's Indonesia OneSearch. Published issues are also sent to LIPI (Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia) to be retained in its repository. MUST Journal also implementing PKP Private LOCKSS Network (PLN) preservation function as can be seen in The Keepers Registry record here.


Publication Ethics


Article standard: The author must present an original article that is accurate about the process of work performed and presents an objective discussion. In the article, the data must be displayed accurately. Articles must contain enough detail and references so others can develop research. Deliberate or inaccurate statements are intentional unethical and unacceptable behavior.

Data access: In certain conditions, at the request of the editor, the author is asked to provide raw data in connection with the review process, the writer must be ready to give the editor access to the data.

Authenticity and plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their work is fully original, and if the author has used the work and/or words of others who have been quoted or quoted correctly.

Multiple publications: An author should not publish manuscripts that descriptively describe the same research in more than one journal or other publication. Sending the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.

Source recognition: Authors must always acknowledge works that have been made by others. Authors must cite publications that have been influential in determining the character of the articles submitted.

About the authors: The names of the authors listed are limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, implementation, or interpretation of the research reported. All people who have made significant contributions must be registered as writers. If other people have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they must be recognized or registered as contributors. The author who corresponds with the editor must ensure that all co-authors are suitable and that no co-authors are incorrectly included in the article and that all co-authors have seen and agreed to the latest version of the article and have agreed to the submission for publication.

Conflict of interest: All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial problems or other substantive conflicts of interest that can be interpreted to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscripts. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his own published work, the author's obligation to immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and work with the editor to retract or correct the manuscript.


Justice: An editor evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content at all times without regard to the race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, or political flow of the writers.

Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff are prohibited from providing any information about the manuscript sent to anyone other than the writer, the sustainable partner, the editorial board, and other publishers.

Conflict of interest: Unpublished material written in the proposed text may not be used in the editor's own research without the written consent of the author.

Publication decision: Journal editors are responsible for determining which articles are published. The editors can solicit input from the journal editorial board and available tools to deal with copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors can discuss with other editors and reviewers to make this decision.

Manuscript review: The editor must ensure that each manuscript is evaluated by the editor in relation to originality. Editors must regulate and use reviewers fairly and wisely. The editor must explain the peer review process as information for the author and also indicate which part of the journal is reviewed by the reviewer. Editors must use peer reviewers that are appropriate for articles that are deemed publishable by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding conflicts of interest.


Contribution to editorial decisions: Reviewers help editors make editorial decisions. Through communication between the editor and the writer, the reviewer can also help the writer improve the article.

Speed: Every selected reviewer who feels ineligible to review the manuscript must notify the editor and resign from the review process

Objectivity standards: The review process must be carried out objectively. Personal criticism for writers is not right. Reviewers must express their views clearly and accompanied by supporting arguments.

Confidentiality: Every text received for review must be treated as a confidential document. They may not be shown or discussed with anyone except those authorized by the editor.

Disclosure and conflict of interest: Information or new ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers must work professionally and get rid of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the writer, company or any institution related to the article.

Source recognition: Reviewers must identify relevant publications that have not been cited by the author. Any statement in the form of observation, derogation, or argument that has been previously published must be accompanied by a relevant quote. A reviewer must also discuss with the editor the substantial similarities or overlaps between the text being reviewed and other articles that have been published.