Review process

  1. General Principles of Peer Review

Peer review is an integral and mandatory component of the journal’s editorial process. Its purpose is to ensure the scientific quality, academic integrity, validity of research results, and alignment of submitted manuscripts with the journal’s scope.

All manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening and meet the basic formal and substantive requirements of the journal are subject to peer review.

The peer review process is guided by the following principles:

  • scientific rigor and professional competence in evaluation;
  • objectivity and impartiality;
  • confidentiality;
  • constructive feedback;
  • adherence to standards of academic integrity and publication ethics.

Peer review is not a formal approval procedure prior to publication. Its primary aim is to provide an independent expert assessment of the scientific value of the manuscript, to identify its strengths and weaknesses, and to support the editorial board in making a well-reasoned decision regarding publication.

The editorial board regards peer review as a key mechanism for ensuring the quality of scholarly communication, rather than merely a technical stage of the editorial process.

  1. Preliminary Editorial Assessment (Desk Review)

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo a preliminary editorial assessment (desk review), the purpose of which is to determine whether the submission meets the journal’s basic requirements before being sent for peer review.

At this stage, the editorial board evaluates:

  • alignment of the manuscript with the thematic scope and scientific focus of the journal;
  • consistency between the title and the content of the article;
  • the presence of a clearly defined research problem;
  • the relevance and scientific novelty of the study;
  • the soundness of the research objectives, tasks, and methodology;
  • the adequacy and logical coherence of the presentation of results;
  • the consistency of conclusions with the presented results;
  • the presence and correctness of references to relevant and recent scholarly sources;
  • compliance with formatting and structural requirements;
  • adherence to principles of academic integrity, including the absence of plagiarism.

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected at the desk review stage without being sent for peer review.

Typical grounds for rejection at this stage include:

  • misalignment with the journal’s scope;
  • lack of scientific novelty or a clearly defined research problem;
  • descriptive or compilative nature of the manuscript without original scholarly contribution;
  • insufficient methodological justification or absence of a methodological framework;
  • inconsistency between conclusions and presented results;
  • significant violations of structural or formatting requirements;
  • detected indications of academic misconduct.

The desk review is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or members of the editorial board.

  1. Selection and Appointment of Reviewers

Manuscripts are reviewed by independent experts with appropriate academic qualifications and research experience in the relevant field.

Reviewers are selected by the editorial board based on the following criteria:

  • alignment of the reviewer’s expertise with the subject of the manuscript;
  • presence of recent scholarly publications in the relevant field;
  • experience in research or expert evaluation;
  • absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or their affiliated institutions.

Both national and international scholars may be invited to serve as reviewers.

Each manuscript is typically assigned to at least two independent reviewers. If necessary (e.g., in cases of conflicting reviews or complex subject matter), additional experts may be invited.

Prior to appointment, the editorial board verifies the absence of potential conflicts of interest.

A reviewer may decline an invitation if:

  • the subject matter falls outside their area of expertise;
  • a conflict of interest exists;
  • they are unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe.

The editorial board ensures a balance of expert opinions and seeks to involve reviewers from diverse institutions and academic environments in order to enhance the objectivity of the review process.

Decisions regarding the selection of reviewers are made by the editorial board and are not disclosed.

  1. Peer Review Process and Evaluation Criteria

Peer review is conducted as an independent expert assessment of the scientific content of the manuscript.

Reviewers analyze the submitted material and provide reasoned conclusions and recommendations regarding its suitability for publication.

The review must be:

  • objective and impartial;
  • well-reasoned;
  • constructive;
  • aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript.

Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.

Evaluation Criteria

Manuscripts are assessed according to the following key criteria:

  • alignment with the journal’s thematic scope;
  • presence of a clearly defined research problem;
  • relevance and scientific novelty of the study;
  • validity and adequacy of the methodology;
  • logical structure of the research;
  • reliability and completeness of the presented results;
  • consistency between conclusions and results;
  • level of engagement with current scholarly literature;
  • contribution to the development of the relevant field;
  • quality of academic writing and formatting.

Particular attention is given to the presence of the author’s original scholarly contribution and the avoidance of purely descriptive or compilative content.

Reviewer Recommendations

Based on the evaluation, the reviewer may provide one of the following recommendations:

  • accept the manuscript without revisions;
  • accept after minor revisions;
  • request major revisions with resubmission for further review;
  • reject the manuscript.

Quality of Reviews

The editorial board monitors the quality of reviews and may:

  • disregard reviews that are superficial, insufficiently justified, or biased;
  • replace the reviewer;
  • involve additional experts.

The objective is to ensure substantive and professional evaluation of manuscripts rather than a formal completion of the review process.

  1. Editorial Decisions Following Peer Review

The final decision regarding publication is made by the editorial board based on the results of peer review and the overall scientific quality of the manuscript.

The editorial board may take one of the following decisions:

  • accept the manuscript for publication;
  • accept subject to revisions;
  • request resubmission for further review;
  • reject the manuscript.

The editorial board is not obliged to automatically follow reviewers’ recommendations. Where justified by scientific considerations, a decision may differ from reviewers’ conclusions.

In cases of conflicting reviews, the editorial board may:

  • invite an additional reviewer;
  • conduct an additional editorial assessment;
  • make a decision based on a synthesized evaluation.

Editorial decisions are final.

  1. Revision and Resubmission

When reviewer comments are provided, authors are required to revise the manuscript in accordance with the recommendations.

Along with the revised manuscript, authors must submit a response to reviewers, in which they:

  • explain the changes made;
  • justify any disagreements with specific comments.

Authors have the right to disagree with reviewers’ recommendations, provided that a clear scientific justification is given.

In cases of substantial revisions, the manuscript may be sent for a second round of peer review.

Failure to submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe or to adequately address substantial comments may result in rejection.

  1. Confidentiality, Integrity, and Conflict of Interest

All materials submitted to the journal are treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript with third parties;
  • use unpublished materials or ideas for their own research.

The editorial board ensures adherence to principles of academic integrity at all stages of the peer review process.

  1. Review Timeline

The editorial board strives to ensure timely and efficient processing of manuscripts.

The duration of the peer review process depends on the complexity of the subject matter, the length of the manuscript, and the availability of reviewers, and typically takes several weeks.

The editorial board makes every effort to adhere to reasonable timelines and to keep authors informed about the status of their manuscript in a timely manner.