Peer Review Procedure
Type of review
All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a double-blind peer review process. The anonymity of both authors and reviewers is strictly maintained to ensure objectivity and impartiality in evaluation.
The editorial board supports the world standards of transparency of the peer review process, so it practices double-anonymized peer review of the manuscript evaluation: the author and the reviewer are not informed in each other's names. Previously, all their personal data is deleted from text articles and files.
Reviewers are selected based on their subject-matter expertise relevant to the manuscript, academic qualifications and publication record, prior peer-review experience, absence of conflicts of interest, adherence to the principles of academic integrity, as well as their ability to provide timely and high-quality reviews.
Articles authored by members of the editorial board and editor-in-chief undergo independent external peer review, and the respective board member is entirely excluded from the decision-making process regarding their own work.
Stages of review
Initial editorial screening – manuscripts are checked for compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, and standards of academic integrity.
- Reviewer assignment – in most cases, each manuscript is sent to two independent experts. If necessary (e.g., in cases of conflicting reviews or complex subject), additional reviewers may be invited.
- Review evaluation – the editorial board consolidates the reviewers’ reports and prepares a preliminary decision.
- Communication with authors – authors receive the full text of the reviews, with constructive comments and recommendations for revision.
- Resubmission and second review – if substantial changes are required, the revised manuscript may be sent again to the original or additional reviewers.
- Final decision – the editorial board, under the authority of the Editor-in-Chief, makes the final decision regarding publication.
To ensure effective communication between authors, editors, and reviewers, the editorial team uses specialized software - the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.
Evaluation criteria
- alignment with the journal’s scope and thematic focus;
- scholarly originality and relevance;
- clarity in stating the research aims and objectives;
- soundness of methodology;
- accuracy of interpretation of results;
- contribution to the advancement of the discipline;
- quality of presentation and compliance with formatting requirements.
Rights and responsibilities of reviewers and editors
- Reviewers must observe principles of confidentiality, objectivity, and impartiality, and must avoid any conflicts of interest.
- When appropriate, reviewers may recommend the involvement of additional experts.
- Editors are responsible for ensuring the transparency and timeliness of the review process, effective communication with authors, and adherence to high ethical standards.
The final decision on publication rests with the editorial board, chaired by the Editor-in-Chief.
Copyright protection
Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts submitted by them are the intellectual property of the authors and belong to the information that is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the article submitted for review or use the materials of the article before its publication.
Reviewing is based on confidentiality, when information about the article (terms of receipt, content, stages and features of reviewing, reviewers' comments and the final decision on publication) is not disclosed to anyone but the authors and reviewers.
