Reviewing

Peer review policy

Double-blind manuscript review – the identities of authors and reviewers remain mutually anonymous throughout the review process, ensuring maximum objectivity in the evaluation of scientific papers.

Peer Review Procedure

  1. Initial Stage

The editor-in-chief or managing editor conducts an initial assessment of each manuscript to determine its relevance to the scope of the collection, relevance, and formatting. At this stage, plagiarism checking is also performed using specialized software.

In cases of potential conflicts of interest (if the editor-in-chief is the author, co-author, or has family or professional ties to the authors), the initial review is conducted by the deputy editor-in-chief or an editorial board member who has no conflict of interest.

Manuscripts that do not meet the established criteria are rejected, and the authors are notified accordingly. Articles that successfully pass the initial stage are submitted for double-blind peer review.

  1. Double-blind peer review

Manuscripts are sent to independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their qualifications and experience in the relevant scientific field.

Before sending to reviewers, all personal information about authors is removed from articles to ensure anonymity.

Reviewers prepare their reviews using a special form and submit their conclusions to the editorial board within 14 days of receiving the manuscript. Should any circumstances arise that cause a delay, reviewers must notify the editorial board in advance.

After receiving the reviews, the editor-in-chief analyzes the reviewers' reports. In cases of significant disagreement, an additional reviewer may be invited to obtain a more complete picture before making a decision.

  1. Decision Making

Based on the reviewers' reports, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept the manuscript unchanged;
  • Accept with minor corrections;
  • Send for revision with subsequent re-review;
  • Reject the manuscript.

The authors are notified of the decision along with the reviewers' comments (except in cases of rejection without further consideration).

If the manuscript requires revision, the authors must take the reviewers' comments into account and submit a revised version. Revision does not guarantee automatic acceptance of the article; if the reviewers deem the changes insufficient, the article may be rejected.

In the case of minor comments, a re-review may be performed directly by the Editor-in-Chief.

If the author has reasonable objections to the review results, they may provide their arguments and explanations, which will be considered by the Editor-in-Chief or the managing editor.

 Final Decision

The final decision on publication of a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account all recommendations, arguments, and compliance with the journal's requirements. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decisions on articles with a conflict of interest. In these cases, manuscripts undergo independent peer review, and the final decision is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

The following criteria are evaluated during the review process:

- Relevance to the topic of the collection;

- Scientific novelty and originality of the results;

- Methodological validity of the study;

- Analysis and interpretation of the results;

- Correspondence to the current state of research in the field;

- Quality of presentation and structure of the manuscript;

- Compliance with ethical research standards;

- Completeness and relevance of bibliographic references.

Review Timelines

The journal's editorial board strives to ensure prompt review of manuscripts:

- Initial manuscript assessment: up to 7 days;

- Double-blind review: up to 20 days;

- Notification of the decision to authors: up to 3 days after completion of the review;

- Total time from submission to first decision: up to 25 days.

Review Quality Assurance

To maintain high review standards, the journal:

- Regularly updates the reviewer database, engaging recognized experts in relevant fields;

- Monitors the quality and timeliness of review;

- Provides reviewers with detailed instructions and forms for manuscript evaluation;

- Maintains the confidentiality of the review process.

Ethical Aspects of Review

Reviewers are obligated to:

- Maintain confidentiality regarding the contents of the manuscript;

- Decline to review if there is a conflict of interest;

- Provide an objective assessment without personal bias;

- Avoid unfounded criticism or praise;

- Adhere to established review deadlines.

Reviewers are recommended to familiarize themselves with and adhere to the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers