Peer Review Policy

This policy defines the procedure for editorial consideration and peer review of manuscripts submitted to the journal. Peer review is a mandatory stage in the assessment of the scientific quality, originality, reliability, and relevance of manuscripts to the journal’s scope.

All original research articles submitted to the journal undergo an initial editorial check and, if this check is passed successfully, are sent for independent scientific peer review before any decision on publication is made.

1. General Principles of Peer Review

The journal applies a peer review procedure to ensure the quality of published materials and compliance with academic standards.

Peer review is intended to assess:

the relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope;
the scientific novelty and significance of the results;
the validity of the methodology and correctness of the research;
the reliability of the data, calculations, and conclusions presented;
the logical structure and clarity of presentation;
the appropriate use of sources and formatting of references;
compliance with the journal’s requirements for publication ethics.

Peer review is conducted before publication. A manuscript cannot be published in the journal without completing the established procedure of editorial consideration and peer review.

2. Review Model

The journal uses a single-blind peer review model.

Under this model, authors do not know the identities of the reviewers, while reviewers may see information about the authors of the manuscript. The anonymity of reviewers is maintained by the editorial office unless otherwise required by law or by established procedures for investigating publication ethics concerns.

The editorial office takes measures to ensure the objectivity, independence, and confidentiality of the peer review process.

3. Initial Editorial Check

After a manuscript is received, the editorial office carries out an initial check of the submitted materials.

At this stage, the following are assessed:

whether the article corresponds to the scope of the journal;
whether all mandatory elements of the manuscript are present;
compliance with the main requirements for language, length, and formatting;
correctness of the submitted PDF file;
presence of references and active links, where applicable;
compliance with the basic requirements of publication ethics;
possible signs of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, improper borrowing, or other forms of misconduct.

A manuscript may be returned to the author for revision or rejected without being sent for peer review if it does not correspond to the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, minimum scientific requirements, or publication ethics policies.

Passing the initial editorial check does not mean that the manuscript has been accepted for publication.

4. Appointment of Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial check are sent for review to specialists with the necessary scientific qualifications and expertise in the relevant field.

Each manuscript is evaluated by two independent reviewers. If necessary, the editorial office may invite an additional independent reviewer.

When selecting reviewers, the editorial office considers:

the reviewer’s scientific specialization;
research experience in the relevant field;
absence of an obvious conflict of interest;
ability to provide an objective and substantive assessment of the manuscript;
compliance with the principles of confidentiality and publication ethics.

Individuals who have a conflict of interest with the authors, their institutions, the research project, or the results of the work should not be appointed as reviewers.

5. Confidentiality of Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers, editors, and other persons involved in the editorial process must not disclose the content of the manuscript, information about the authors, the course of peer review, reviewers’ comments, or editorial decisions to third parties, except in cases provided for by editorial procedures or legal requirements.

Reviewers must not use materials, ideas, data, or conclusions contained in an unpublished manuscript for their own benefit or for the benefit of third parties.

6. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, professionally, and in good faith.

A reviewer should:

assess the scientific quality and relevance of the manuscript;
identify the strengths and weaknesses of the work;
point out significant methodological, logical, or technical shortcomings, if any;
assess the validity of the conclusions and their consistency with the presented results;
inform the editorial office of possible signs of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or other forms of misconduct;
provide constructive comments that may help the author improve the manuscript;
maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process;
decline the review if there is a conflict of interest or insufficient competence to evaluate the manuscript.

Review reports must be well-reasoned, appropriate in tone, and must not contain personal, discriminatory, or offensive remarks about the authors.

7. Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation

When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers evaluate, among other aspects:

the relevance of the article to the journal’s scope;
originality and scientific novelty of the research;
relevance of the scientific problem addressed;
correctness of the methodology;
reliability of the results presented;
validity of the conclusions;
quality of data analysis and interpretation;
completeness and relevance of the references;
clarity of structure and academic style of presentation;
quality of figures, tables, formulas, and graphic materials;
compliance with the journal’s ethical requirements.

8. Reviewers’ Recommendations

Based on the review, a reviewer may recommend one of the following decisions:

accept the manuscript for publication;
accept the manuscript after minor revision;
return the manuscript for major revision and further consideration;
reject the manuscript.

Reviewers’ recommendations are an important part of the editorial process; however, the final decision on the manuscript is made by the journal’s editorial office.

9. Editorial Decision

After receiving the review reports, the editorial office analyzes the reviewers’ comments and makes one of the following decisions:

accept the manuscript for publication;
return the manuscript to the author for revision;
request additional peer review;
reject the manuscript.

The editorial decision is based on the scientific quality of the manuscript, the reviewers’ reports, the relevance of the article to the journal’s scope and requirements, and compliance with publication ethics.

If the review reports differ significantly in content or recommendations, the editorial office may invite an additional independent reviewer or make a decision based on internal editorial discussion.

10. Manuscript Revision

If a manuscript is returned to the author for revision, the author must submit a revised version of the article and, where necessary, a response to the comments of the reviewers and the editorial office.

The author’s response must be respectful, detailed, and explain what changes have been made to the manuscript. If the author disagrees with certain comments, a reasoned explanation must be provided.

After receiving the revised version, the editorial office may:

accept the manuscript;
send it for further peer review;
request additional revision;
reject the manuscript.

11. Rejection of a Manuscript

A manuscript may be rejected at any stage of editorial consideration if it is found that the manuscript:

does not correspond to the journal’s scope;
does not contain a sufficient scientific contribution;
has significant methodological or technical shortcomings;
does not comply with the journal’s requirements;
contains unreliable data or unsupported conclusions;
violates the requirements of publication ethics;
contains plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification of results, or other serious violations;
has not been properly revised by the author after comments were provided.

The decision to reject a manuscript is communicated to the author with an indication of the main reason or reasons for rejection, where applicable.

12. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, members of the Editorial Board, or other persons involved in the work of the journal are considered according to the same scientific and ethical requirements as all other manuscripts.

Such manuscripts must undergo independent peer review. A person who is an author or co-author of the manuscript must not participate in the selection of reviewers, editorial consideration, discussion, or decision-making regarding that manuscript.

To ensure the independence of the editorial process, consideration of such a manuscript is assigned to another editor or Editorial Board member who has no conflict of interest.

13. Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review Process

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any circumstances that may affect the objectivity of editorial consideration or create the appearance of such influence.

Potential conflicts of interest may include:

joint publications or current research projects;
employment or organizational dependence;
personal, financial, or professional relationships;
competing scientific or commercial interests;
any other circumstances that may affect the objectivity of the evaluation.

If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer must decline the review, and the editor must transfer consideration of the manuscript to another authorized person.

14. Special Issues

If the journal organizes special issues, materials submitted to such issues are subject to the same peer review requirements as articles in regular issues.

Articles in special issues must undergo independent external peer review. Guest editors, if involved in the preparation of a special issue, may not make final decisions on articles independently without oversight by the journal’s editorial office.

Manuscripts submitted by guest editors of a special issue must be handled through an independent procedure and must not be evaluated by persons who have a conflict of interest.

15. Peer Review Timeline

The editorial office strives to ensure timely consideration of manuscripts. The duration of peer review may depend on the subject area of the article, the availability of qualified reviewers, the length of the manuscript, the need for revision, and the complexity of the research presented.

The editorial office informs the author about the progress of manuscript consideration where necessary. The author may contact the editorial office using the official contact details of the journal to inquire about the status of the manuscript.

16. Appeals

The author has the right to appeal an editorial decision if the author believes that, when making the decision, the editorial office misunderstood circumstances related to the manuscript, or that there was incomplete consideration of the manuscript or a violation of editorial procedure.

An appeal must contain a reasoned explanation of the author’s position and must not be based solely on disagreement with the opinion of reviewers or the editorial office.

Appeals are considered in accordance with the journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy.

17. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers and editors must comply with the journal’s policy on the use of generative artificial intelligence and AI-assisted technologies.

Reviewers must not upload the manuscript or any part of it to publicly available AI tools, as this may violate confidentiality, authors’ rights, and data protection requirements.

AI tools cannot replace the independent expert judgment of a reviewer or the editorial decision-making process.

18. Responsibility of the Editorial Office

The editorial office is responsible for organizing a fair, independent, and transparent peer review process.

The editorial office ensures:

initial checking of manuscripts;
selection of qualified independent reviewers;
maintenance of confidentiality;
consideration of conflicts of interest;
editorial decision-making based on the scientific quality of the manuscript and reviewers’ reports;
compliance with the journal’s policies and publication ethics standards.

The final decision to accept, return for revision, or reject a manuscript is made by the journal’s editorial office.

The editorial office reserves the right to update this policy to bring it into line with developments in international scholarly publishing practice and requirements for responsible publication conduct.