Peer Review Process

Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific communication. We adhere to a transparent and unbiased approach to evaluating  manuscripts in accordance with the requirements of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

We  employ a double-blind peer review model. This means:

  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
  • Reviewers do not have information regarding the authors.

This approach ensures objectivity, impartiality, and compliance with international standards of academic integrity.

For every submission, we appoint two independent reviewers selected based on the following criteria:

  • Scientific competence in the relevant field.
  • A proven track record of publications on the article's topic.
  • No actual or potential conflicts of interest.
  • Experience in peer review or scientific expertise.
  • Strict adherence to ethics and confidentiality principles

Review Stages and Timeline

Desk Review

Upon submission, the editorial board performs an initial check:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope.
  • Compliance with formatting requirements.
  • Plagiarism check.
  • Basic assessment of scientific novelty.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without being sent for full peer review.

Expert Evaluation

Reviewers analyze the manuscript based on:

  • Scientific novelty and topicality.
  • Research methodology.
  • Validity of results and conclusions.
  • Quality of structure and presentation.
  • Compliance with ethical standards.

 Timeline

  • Desk Review: 1–2 weeks.
  • Standard Review Period: 2–4 weeks.
  • If necessary, the deadline may be extended by agreement with the editorial office. Reviewers must notify the editors if they cannot meet the deadline.

Decision Making

The Editorial Board makes the final decision based on the reviewers' conclusions. Reviewers complete a standardized review form to provide their feedback.

Possible Outcomes:

  • Accept for publication (no changes required).
  • Accept after minor revision.
  • Major revision (requires a second round of review).
  • Decline: If the material does not meet scientific standards or contains critical flaws

Author Revision:

  •  After receiving reviews, the author is obliged to submit a revised version of the manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments.

  • If necessary, the article undergoes a second round of peer review.

Ethical Principles of Peer Review:

The review procedure is based on the following principles:

  • Confidentiality
  • Impartiality
  • Absence of conflicts of interest.
  • Academic integrity.
  • Accountability for the validity of conclusions