Peer-review process

Manuscripts submitted to the editorial office must comply with the journal’s policy and all the requirements. The Executive Secretary conducts a preliminary check of manuscripts for compliance with the journal’s scope and publication requirements and then submits them for peer review to reviewers who are experts in the relevant research field.

Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief or, in certain circumstances, by a member of the Editorial Board. External highly qualified specialists with experience in a specific scientific field may also be invited to review manuscripts, typically associate professors, PhD holders, professors, or Doctors of Science.

Criteria for the selection of reviewers:

  • Possession of a PhD or Doctor of Science degree
  • Publications related to the subject area of the reviewed manuscript
  • Publications in journals indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science
  • Absence of conflicts of interest with the author(s)

Within two weeks, the reviewer prepares a report on the manuscript’s compliance with all editorial requirements and its suitability for publication (the time frame may be adjusted to ensure the most favorable conditions for objective peer review, but it should not exceed four weeks).

Peer review is conducted confidentially according to the double-blind review principle, meaning that neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other’s identity.

The reviewer completes a standard Review Form, providing their recommendations. The editorial office informs the author of the review results via email.

The reviewer evaluates:

  • the adequacy of the justification of the article’s relevance;
  • the substantiation of the connection between the problem addressed in the article and important scientific or practical tasks;
  • the completeness of the analysis of recent research and publications on the general problem;
  • the correspondence between the objectives of the article and the problem addressed by the author;
  • the substantiation of the obtained scientific results;
  • the scientific conclusions and their consistency with the aim of the article;
  • prospects for further research in the given field.

If the reviewer indicates the need for revisions, the author revises the manuscript taking into account the reviewer’s comments or provides a well-reasoned justification for their position. The reviewer must examine the revised version and make a decision regarding the possibility of publication. The date of the reviewer’s positive conclusion is considered the date of acceptance of the manuscript for publication.

The final decision on publication, including the expected publication date, is made by the Editor-in-Chief (or, upon their authorization, by a member of the Editorial Board), and the author is informed accordingly.

Appeal

The author has the right to submit an appeal against a rejection decision within 10 days. The appeal is considered by an independent member of the Editorial Board.