Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office of the journal undergo a mandatory scientific peer review procedure. The purpose of the review is to evaluate the scientific novelty, relevance of the research topic, reliability of the results, correctness of the applied methodology, and compliance of the article with the scientific and editorial standards of the journal. All submitted materials are also checked for plagiarism and self-plagiarism.

Type of Peer Review

The journal uses a double-blind peer review process. In this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the entire review process.

Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a member of the editorial board to determine its compliance with the journal’s scope and formatting requirements. If necessary, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for revision before being sent for peer review.

The initial screening process usually takes up to three weeks.

Peer Review

Manuscripts that meet the journal’s requirements are sent for expert evaluation to two independent reviewers who are specialists in the relevant field. External experts with relevant research publications may also be invited to participate in the review process.

The review process is conducted on a confidential basis. Reviewers are required not to disclose the content of the manuscript and not to use any information obtained during the review process for their own research before the material is officially published.

Review Reports

The review report should include an expert assessment of the manuscript according to the following criteria:

correspondence between the title and the content of the article;

relevance and significance of the research topic;

scientific novelty of the obtained results;

appropriateness of publication considering previously published literature on the topic;

quality of presentation (language, style, terminology, and structure).

Reviewers may provide recommendations to the author and the editorial board aimed at improving the manuscript. Comments and suggestions should be objective and constructive and aimed at enhancing the scientific and methodological quality of the paper.

Based on the peer review results, the following decisions may be made:

accept the article for publication;

accept the article after minor revisions;

request revision with subsequent re-review;

reject the article.

If revisions are required, authors must revise the manuscript accordingly and submit a corrected version together with a response to the reviewers’ comments.

In the case of an overall negative evaluation, the reviewer must provide a well-reasoned justification for the recommendation to reject the manuscript.

Editorial Decision

The final decision on the publication of the article is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviewers’ recommendations as well as the manuscript’s compliance with the scientific standards and thematic scope of the journal. Authors are informed of the decision by email.

Review Timeline

initial editorial screening – up to 3 weeks;

expert peer review – up to 30 working days from the date the manuscript is sent to reviewers.

If necessary, the review period may be shortened upon agreement with the editorial office.

Conflict of Interest

Authors must inform the editorial office about any potential conflict of interest (professional, financial, or personal) that could influence the objectivity of the research. The editorial board reviews such information and decides on the further consideration of the manuscript.