Article peer review
Review procedure
After submission of a manuscript, a preliminary editorial assessment is conducted by the editorial board (Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief), during which the article’s compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, and general scientific standards is evaluated.
Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements may be rejected without being sent for peer review.
Articles that successfully pass the preliminary assessment are sent for double-blind peer review, which ensures the anonymity of both authors and reviewers.
Before being sent for review, all identifying information about the authors is removed from the manuscript.
Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts, one of whom may be a member of the editorial board and the other an external specialist.
At least one reviewer must be affiliated with an institution different from that of the authors.
Criteria for selecting reviewers
Highly qualified researchers are invited to participate in the peer review process, who:
- hold an academic degree and have research experience in the relevant field;
- specialize in the topic corresponding to the content of the submitted manuscript;
- have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the subject of the research;
- adhere to the principles of publication ethics and confidentiality.
Reviewers are required to evaluate manuscripts objectively, provide justified comments, and inform the editorial board in case any violations of academic integrity are identified.
Criteria for manuscript evaluation
During the peer review process, the following aspects are assessed:
- whether the topic of the article corresponds to the scope of the journal;
- the relevance and scientific novelty of the research;
- the validity and reliability of the obtained results;
- the practical significance of the work;
- the logical structure of the manuscript and the quality of the academic writing style;
- compliance with the established formatting requirements.
Review timelines
The standard period for preparing a review is up to 4 weeks from the moment the manuscript is received by the reviewer.
If it is not possible to complete the review within the established timeframe, the reviewer must inform the editorial board so that another expert can be assigned.
Forms of documentation
Peer review is conducted using a standardized review form, which includes both a qualitative assessment of the manuscript and recommendations regarding its suitability for publication.
Reviews are used as the basis for editorial decisions and are stored in the editorial office.
The retention period is 5 years.
Authors receive the text of the review without disclosure of the reviewer’s identity.
Decision-making
Based on the review of the submitted manuscript, reviewers may make one of the following decisions:
- publish the article in its original form;
- publish the article with minor revisions agreed upon between the authors and the editorial board;
- return the manuscript to the authors for revision (taking into account reviewers’ comments), with mandatory re-review after substantial changes have been made;
- reject the article with the possibility of resubmission after major revision (taking into account reviewers’ comments).
- reject the manuscript without the possibility of resubmission due to fundamental shortcomings in the material;
- reject the manuscript due to non-compliance with the journal’s scope.
In case of contradictory reviews, the manuscript may be sent to an additional reviewer. If two negative reviews are received, the article is rejected.
Reviewers’ comments requiring revision are forwarded to the author by the executive secretary of the journal. The author’s responses and the revised version of the manuscript are then sent back to the reviewer.
An article may be published only if it receives two positive reviews.
The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board by a majority vote and approved by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviews and the results of plagiarism checking.
Reviewers are required to:
- maintain confidentiality regarding the content of the manuscript under review;
- avoid conflicts of interest;
- report any possible ethical violations or instances of improper use of sources.