Peer-review process
The journal applies a double-blind peer review process, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. This ensures objectivity, impartiality, and academic integrity in the manuscript evaluation process.
Reviewers are selected by the Editorial Board based on the following criteria:
- academic degree or significant expertise in the relevant field;
- publication activity related to the manuscript topic;
- absence of conflicts of interest with the authors;
- professional reputation and adherence to ethical standards;
- experience in scholarly peer review.
Where necessary, independent national or international experts may be invited.
The standard review period is up to 4 weeks from the date a reviewer agrees to evaluate the manuscript. If needed, the timeframe may be extended, and authors will be informed accordingly.
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:
- scientific originality and relevance;
- methodological soundness;
- reliability of results;
- clarity and coherence of presentation;
- relevance to the journal’s scope;
- quality of references and formatting.
All stages of the peer review process are recorded by the editorial office, including:
- manuscript submission date;
- assignment of reviewers;
- review reports and comments;
- editorial decisions.
All reviews are archived in accordance with the journal’s confidentiality policy.
Based on reviewer reports, the Editorial Board may decide to:
- accept the manuscript without revisions;
- accept with minor revisions;
- request major revisions and resubmission for further review;
- reject the manuscript.
The final decision is made by the Editorial Board and is binding.
All materials under review are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not use or disclose any part of the manuscript.
The peer review process follows international ethical standards, including COPE guidelines.
