Peer review policy

To maintain a high scientific and theoretical standard, the journal “Art and Design” operates a mandatory peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. Its primary purpose is to ensure an impartial expert evaluation of submitted materials, to select only high-quality research, and to verify compliance with academic, ethical, and stylistic standards. Peer review is an essential component of the journal’s editorial process and is conducted to ensure scientific quality, academic integrity, the validity of research results, and the alignment of manuscripts with the journal’s scope. Reviewers are required to act impartially and adhere to the principles outlined in the section on Publication Ethics.

Principle of anonymity

All studies are evaluated according to the double-blind review procedure, which provides:

• reviewers do not know who the author of the article is;
• authors do not receive information about the reviewer's identity.

1. General Principles of Peer Review

All manuscripts that have passed the initial editorial screening and meet the journal’s basic formal and content requirements are subject to peer review.

The peer review process is based on the following principles:

• scientific and professional competence of the evaluation;
• objectivity and impartiality;
• confidentiality;
• constructiveness of comments;
• compliance with the norms of academic integrity and publication ethics.

Peer review is not a formal procedure for approving a manuscript for publication. Its purpose is to provide an independent expert assessment of the scientific value of the material, to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, and to provide the editorial board with a basis for making a reasoned decision regarding its publication. 

The editorial board considers peer review as a tool for ensuring the quality of scholarly communication, rather than merely a technical stage of the editorial process.

2. Preliminary editorial review

After the manuscript is received by the editorial board, a preliminary editorial review (desk review) is carried out, the purpose of which is to determine the compliance of the submitted material with the basic requirements of the journal before sending it for review.

At this stage, the editorial board assesses:

• compliance of the manuscript with the thematic profile and scientific focus of the journal;
• compliance of the title with the content of the article;
• presence of a clearly formulated scientific problem;
• relevance and scientific novelty of the research;
• justification of the goal, objectives and methodology;
• sufficiency and logic of the presentation of the results;
• compliance of the conclusions with the results obtained;
• presence and correctness of references to modern scientific sources;
• compliance with the requirements for the design and structure of the article;
• compliance with the principles of academic integrity, in particular the absence of plagiarism.

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected at the initial screening stage without being sent for peer review.

Typical grounds for rejection at this stage include:

• inconsistency with the journal's topic;
• lack of scientific novelty or research problem;
• descriptive or compilation nature of the material without its own scientific contribution;
• insufficient justification of the methodology or lack of a methodological approach;
• inconsistency of conclusions with the presented results;
• significant violations of the requirements for structure or design;
• signs of academic dishonesty are identified.

Preliminary editorial review is carried out by the editor-in-chief or members of the editorial board.

3. Selection and Appointment of Reviewers

Manuscripts are reviewed by independent experts who possess appropriate academic qualifications and research experience in the relevant field.

Reviewers are selected by the editorial board based on the following criteria:

• correspondence of scientific specialization to the topic of the manuscript;
• availability of relevant scientific publications in the relevant field;
• experience in research or expert activities;
• absence of conflict of interest with the authors or institutions to which they belong.

Both domestic and foreign scientists can be involved in the review.

Each manuscript is usually sent to at least two independent reviewers. If necessary (in particular, when receiving contradictory reviews or the complexity of the topic), the editorial board may involve additional experts.

Prior to the appointment of a reviewer, the editorial board verifies the absence of any potential conflict of interest.

A reviewer has the right to decline the review if:

• the topic of the manuscript goes beyond his competence;
• there is a conflict of interest;
• he is unable to complete the review within the established deadline.

The editorial board ensures a balance of expert assessments and strives to involve reviewers from different institutions and scientific environments in order to increase the objectivity of the review.

Decisions regarding the appointment of reviewers are made by the editorial board and are not disclosed.

4. Conduct of Peer Review and Evaluation Criteria

Peer review is carried out in the form of an independent expert assessment of the scientific content of the manuscript.

Reviewers analyse the submitted material and provide reasoned conclusions and recommendations regarding its suitability for publication.

A review must be:

• objective and impartial;
• well-reasoned;
• constructive;
• aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript.

Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.

Evaluation criteria for manuscripts

The manuscript is assessed according to the following main criteria:

• relevance to the journal’s scope;
• presence of a clearly defined research problem;
• relevance and scientific novelty of the study;
• justification and adequacy of the methodology;
• logical structure of the research;
• reliability and completeness of the presented results;
• consistency of the conclusions with the results obtained;
• level of processing of modern scientific sources;
• scientific contribution to the development of the relevant field;
• quality of academic writing and formatting.

Particular attention is given to the presence of the author’s original scholarly contribution and the avoidance of a purely descriptive or compilative nature of the material.

Reviewers’ recommendations

Based on the evaluation results, the reviewer may provide one of the following recommendations:

• accept the manuscript without changes;
• accept after minor revisions;
• send for significant revisions with repeated review;
• reject the manuscript.

Quality of reviews

The editorial board monitors the quality of reviews and may:

• disregard reviews that are superficial, unfounded, or biased;
• replace the reviewer;
• involve additional experts.

The aim is to ensure a substantive and professional evaluation of manuscripts rather than a merely formal completion of the peer review process.

5. Editorial Decision Based on Peer Review

The final decision on publication of the manuscript is made by the editorial board based on the review results and taking into account the scientific quality of the material.

The editorial board may make one of the following decisions:

• accept the manuscript for publication;
• accept after revision;
• send for re-review;
• reject the manuscript.

The editorial board is not obliged to automatically agree with the reviewers' recommendations. If necessary, a decision may be made that differs from the reviewers' conclusions if it is justified by scientific considerations.

In the event of conflicting reviews, the editorial board may:

• involve an additional reviewer;
• carry out additional editorial analysis;
• make a decision based on a generalized assessment.

Editorial decisions are final.

6. Revision and Re-Examination of the Manuscript

In case of receiving comments from reviewers, authors are obliged to revise the manuscript taking into account the recommendations provided.

Together with the revised manuscript, authors must provide a response to the reviewers, which:

• explains the changes made;
• justifies cases of disagreement with individual comments.

The author has the right to disagree with the reviewer's recommendations, provided that a clear scientific justification is provided.

In case of significant changes, the manuscript may be re-sent for review.

Failure to submit the revised manuscript within the established deadline or ignoring significant comments may be grounds for rejection.

7. Confidentiality, Integrity and Conflict of Interest

All materials submitted to the journal are treated as confidential.

Reviewers are not permitted to:

• transfer the manuscript to third parties;
• use unpublished materials or ideas in their own research.

The editorial board ensures compliance with the principles of academic integrity at all stages of the review.

8. Manuscript Review Deadlines

The editorial board strives to ensure timely and efficient review of manuscripts.

The duration of the review process depends on the complexity of the topic, the volume of the manuscript and the availability of reviewers and, as a rule, is several weeks.

The editorial board makes efforts to adhere to reasonable review deadlines and to inform authors in a timely manner about the status of their manuscript.

• Standard review deadline: 2–4 weeks
• Average time to first decision: 4–8 weeks