Peer Review
The peer-review of manuscripts is an integral component of the publication process, ensuring the high standards of academic quality. This process is conducted with the strict adherence to the principles of objectivity, confidentiality and impartiality.
The journal uses a double-blind peer review process.
Each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial screening and preliminary editorial review covering:
- alignment with the journal’s thematic focus;
- compliance with formatting requirements;
- checking for text similarities and plagiarism;
- compliance with publication ethics standards, mainly regarding the use of artificial intelligence.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s requirements may be rejected without being sent for peer review.
Before being sent for peer review, all information identifying the author is removed from the manuscript, the file’s metadata is cleared, and the anonymity of all participants in the process is guaranteed.
Each manuscript is sent to at least two independent reviewers who are specialists in the relevant field. Reviewers must have no ties to the authors or conflicts of interest, and they must not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors.
The editorial board selects reviewers based on the following criteria:
- holding an academic degree or relevant qualification;
- professional specialisation corresponding to the manuscript’s subject matter;
- recent publications on related topics;
- reviewing experience (if any);
- no conflict of interest with the authors;
- reviewers must belong to a different institution.
The review of the report is conducted in writing – via the journal’s online editorial system or using a standardised form approved by the editorial board.
The review contains:
- an assessment of the scientific quality and academic value of the manuscript;
- comments and recommendations for revision (if necessary);
- a reasoned conclusion regarding the suitability of the material for publication;
- a recommendation regarding the editorial decision (accept, revise, reject).
Reviews are used as part of the editorial process.
Estimated review time: 2–5 weeks. These times may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the availability of reviewers. If additional time is required, the reviewer is obliged to notify the editorial board in advance, stating the reason.
The expert evaluation is based on the following criteria:
- relevance to the journal’s subject area;
- originality and scientific novelty;
- clarity of problem formulation and logical structure;
- methodological soundness;
- substantiation of results and conclusions;
- transparency in data handling;
- consistency between the title and the content;
- quality of the literature review;
- accuracy of citations and compliance with formatting requirements;
- adherence to academic and ethical standards.
Following the peer review process, one of the following decisions may be taken:
- to reject the manuscript as failing to meet the journal’s requirements;
- to recommend it for publication;
- to return it to the author for revision, taking into account the reviewers’ comments.
The final decision on publication rests with the editorial board.
If the manuscript requires revision, the author will receive the reviewers’ comments and a deadline for revision. The decision on how to proceed – whether to revise the manuscript in accordance with the recommendations provided or to decline the revisions – rests with the author (co-authors) of the article. If the revised manuscript is not submitted within 1 month, it may be withdrawn from consideration.
Manuscripts authored by editors or members of the editorial board are reviewed by an independent editor, undergo the standard double-blind peer review process, and are not considered by individuals with a conflict of interest. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decisions regarding their own manuscripts.
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all materials, refrain from using unpublished data in their own research and provide objective, reasoned assessments. Violations of ethical standards may result in the reviewer being removed from the journal's database.
Authors have the right to appeal against the results of the peer review process. These appeals are considered by the editorial board, who may involve additional independent experts.
