Peer-review process
After submission to the editorial office, the manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous.
Stages of the Review Process
Initial Screening
At this stage, the manuscript is assessed for:
- compliance with the journal’s scope and subject area;
- plagiarism (using the StrikePlagiarism system);
- adherence to technical and formatting requirements.
Based on the results of the initial screening, a decision is made either to send the manuscript for peer review or to reject it.
Assignment of Reviewers
Peer review is carried out by members of the editorial board or other qualified experts with relevant academic credentials, research experience in the respective field, and publications related to the manuscript’s topic. The Editor-in-Chief and editorial board members are responsible for organizing the review process and ensuring adherence to the principles of academic integrity.
An anonymized version of the manuscript is provided for review. If a reviewer lacks the necessary expertise or is unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe, they must promptly inform the editorial office.
Reviewer Selection Criteria:
- possession of a PhD or Doctor of Sciences degree;
- relevant publications in the field of the submitted manuscript;
- experience publishing in journals indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science;
- absence of any conflict of interest with the author(s).
Review Criteria
During the review process, the following aspects are evaluated:
- clarity of the research problem and originality of the approach;
- engagement with existing scholarly literature;
- validity and soundness of the arguments;
- absence of biased or inappropriate statements;
- evidence of potential plagiarism;
- the author’s contribution to the field;
- coherence, structure, and clarity of the text;
- relevance and quality of illustrations;
- quality of the abstract(s).
Reviewer’s Recommendations
The review must include clear conclusions regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication, specifying any major shortcomings (if applicable), and one of the following recommendations:
- accept for publication;
- accept after minor or major revisions;
- reject.
Revision by the Author
The author receives an anonymized review, prepares a revised version of the manuscript, and submits a response addressing the reviewer’s comments.
Final Decision
A positive review does not guarantee publication. The final decision on whether to publish the manuscript is made by the editorial board.
Documentation of the Process
Reviews are completed using a standard form and are stored in the editorial archive for three years.
Timeframes
- from submission to first decision: 4–8 weeks;
- revision period for authors: up to 15 days;
- re-review period: up to 7 days.
Appeal Procedure
Authors have the right to appeal a rejection decision within 10 days. Appeals are considered by an independent member of the editorial board.
Peer Review Procedure in Cases of Conflict of Interest
In cases where a manuscript is submitted by a member of the editorial board, a journal staff member, the Editor-in-Chief, or a person affiliated with the journal’s founder, a special procedure is applied to ensure the independence and objectivity of the peer review process.
Such individuals are fully excluded from the review process, the organization of peer review, and the editorial decision-making regarding their own manuscript.
Reviewers are appointed by an authorized editor with no conflict of interest. Independent experts of the relevant academic field, with no connections to the author, are engaged in the review process.
The final editorial decision is made by an authorized editor or a member of the editorial board who has no conflict of interest regarding the submitted manuscript.
The editorial office documents the recusal of the interested persons, the appointment of reviewers, and the final decision to ensure transparency of the process.
