Reviewing

Type of Peer Review

All materials submitted to the editorial office undergo a double-blind peer review

The Editorial Board guarantees the anonymity of both authors and reviewers, ensuring objectivity and impartiality in the evaluation process.

Stages of Peer Review

The Editorial Board appoints two independent experts in the relevant field to review the submitted manuscript. Reviewers may include members of the journal’s Editorial Board as well as external highly qualified specialists with extensive professional knowledge and experience in the specific research area.

Upon receiving a manuscript for review, the reviewer assesses the possibility of conducting the review, taking into account their own qualifications, the author’s research area, and the absence of any conflict of interest. In the event of a conflict of interest, the reviewer must decline the review and notify the Editorial Board within 2–3 days.

The peer review process lasts two weeks (14 days) from the date the manuscript is received for review. After completing the review, the reviewer submits the manuscript with comments and a conclusion to the Editorial Board or completes a standardized Reviewer’s Report form.

The Editorial Board forwards the manuscript with reviewers’ comments to the author and invites them to address these comments when preparing a revised version of the article. The author must revise the manuscript and resubmit it to the Editorial Board within one month.

If necessary, the revised manuscript is sent back to the reviewer for reconsideration within one month. Within one week of receiving the revised version, the reviewer evaluates whether the comments have been adequately addressed and prepares a concluding assessment.

After the final review, the reviewer provides a reasoned recommendation regarding the possibility of publication or completes the standardized Reviewer’s Report containing final recommendations.

If the manuscript is rejected by the reviewers, the Editorial Board sends a written notification to the author.

The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board and approved by the Editor-in-Chief.

Rights and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must adhere to the principles of confidentiality, objectivity, and impartiality and avoid any conflicts of interest.

Reviewers assess the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its scientific significance and novelty, as well as its practical value; they also evaluate the manuscript’s compliance with ethical standards in scholarly publishing and provide recommendations in cases of violations.

Manuscripts submitted for review are the intellectual property of the authors and constitute confidential information. Reviewers are not permitted to make copies of the manuscript or use information from the manuscript prior to its publication.

If there are indications of data unreliability or falsification, the reviewer must inform the Editorial Board and request a collective review of the manuscript.

A reviewer may decline to review a manuscript if: 1) they are not confident that their qualifications correspond to the research area; 2) a conflict of interest exists.

Evaluation Criteria During Peer Review

• Relevance to the journal’s scope: whether the manuscript’s topic corresponds to the aims and thematic focus of the journal.
• Topicality: relevance to current scientific challenges and practical significance.
• Scientific novelty: the presence of new results, ideas, or approaches not previously published.
• Scientific significance: contribution to the development of a specific field of research or the knowledge base.
• Aims and objectives: clarity of the stated aims and objectives and their consistency with the topic and content of the article.
• Methodological soundness: appropriateness of the methods used and correctness of data processing and interpretation.
• Validity of conclusions: logical coherence between the results obtained and the final conclusions.
• Completeness of analysis: depth of coverage of the research object and achievement of the stated aims.
• Academic integrity: absence of plagiarism and compliance with the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
• Quality of presentation: clarity, logical structure, linguistic accuracy, and adherence to academic style.
• References and literature review: sources must be current, relevant, and sufficiently comprehensive.
• Formatting: compliance with requirements regarding length, structure (abstract, introduction, results, etc.), and bibliography.

Appeals Procedure

If an author disagrees with specific reviewer comments, they have the right to submit an appeal to the Editorial Board in the format “reviewer’s comment – author’s response.” This document is forwarded to the reviewer, and a joint decision on the manuscript is made in consultation with the Editorial Board.

In cases where reviewers provide opposing recommendations (accept/reject), the Editorial Board contacts the reviewers and jointly considers all comments in order to reach a consensus regarding further publication of the manuscript.

If a final decision cannot be reached, the Editorial Board appoints an independent expert for additional evaluation.