Review policy

Peer review is a mandatory component of the journal’s editorial process and is conducted to ensure scientific quality, academic integrity, the validity of research results, and the relevance of manuscripts to the journal’s scope.

All manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening and meet the basic formal and content requirements of the journal are subject to peer review.

The peer review procedure is based on the following principles:

  • scientific rigor and professional competence of evaluation;
  • objectivity and impartiality;
  • confidentiality;
  • constructiveness of feedback;
  • adherence to academic integrity and publication ethics standards.

Peer review is not a formal approval procedure for publication. Its purpose is an independent expert assessment of the scientific value of the manuscript, identification of its strengths and weaknesses, and provision of a basis for an informed editorial decision regarding publication.

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

Procedure for Manuscript Review in “Industry of Fashion. Fashion Industry”

  1. The expert evaluation of manuscripts is conducted to maintain the high scientific standards of the journal and to select the most valuable and relevant research articles.
  2. The journal uses a Double-Blind Peer Review system:
    • reviewers do not know the identity of the authors;
    • authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
  3. Submitted manuscripts undergo initial verification for completeness, correctness of submission, and compliance with the journal’s requirements available on the website.
  4. An initial editorial review is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor.
  5. Upon submission, a preliminary editorial screening (desk review) is performed to determine whether the manuscript meets the basic requirements before peer review. At this stage, the editorial office evaluates:
    • relevance to the journal’s scope and thematic focus;
    • correspondence between title and content;
    • clarity of the research problem;
    • relevance and scientific novelty;
    • clarity of aims, objectives, and methodology;
    • adequacy and logic of results presentation;
    • consistency between results and conclusions;
    • relevance and correctness of references to recent sources;
    • compliance with formatting and structural requirements;
    • adherence to academic integrity principles, including absence of plagiarism.

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without peer review.

Typical grounds for desk rejection include:

  • mismatch with the journal’s scope;
  • absence of scientific novelty or research problem;
  • descriptive or compilative nature without original contribution;
  • insufficient methodological justification or absence of methodology;
  • inconsistency between results and conclusions;
  • significant violations of formatting or structural requirements;
  • evidence of academic misconduct.
  1. The Editor-in-Chief (or Managing Editor) assigns a reviewer from the editorial board specializing in the relevant research field.
  2. If no suitable editorial board member is available, an external reviewer is appointed.
  3. Before assignment, the editorial office checks for potential conflicts of interest. A reviewer may refuse to review if:
  • the manuscript topic is outside their expertise;
  • a conflict of interest exists;
  • they are unable to complete the review within the required timeframe.

Peer review is conducted as an independent expert evaluation of the manuscript’s scientific content.

  1. Reviewers analyze the manuscript and provide justified conclusions and recommendations regarding publication.
  2. Reviews must be:
  • objective and unbiased;
  • well-argued;
  • constructive;
  • aimed at improving manuscript quality.

Personal criticism of the author is not allowed.

Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following criteria:

  • relevance to the journal’s scope;
  • clarity of the research problem;
  • relevance and scientific novelty;
  • methodological validity;
  • logical structure of the study;
  • reliability and completeness of results;
  • consistency between results and conclusions;
  • quality of contemporary literature review;
  • scientific contribution to the field;
  • academic writing quality and formatting.
  1. Reviewers (both editorial board members and external experts) must specialists in the manuscript’s field and have at least one publication in the last three years in journals indexed in national lists or in international databases such as Web of Science Core Collection and/or Scopus, or have monographs/chapters published by international publishers classified as “A”, “B”, or “C” according to SENSE classification.

After review, the reviewer may:

  • recommend the manuscript for publication;
  • recommend publication after revision;
  • reject the manuscript.

If revision or rejection is recommended, reasons must be provided.

  1. The editor recommends using a standardized review form.
  2. When reviewing manuscripts, reviewers should:
  • assess the relevance of the research problem;
  • evaluate theoretical and applied value;
  • check mathematical calculations, figures, and drawings;
  • assess alignment with existing scientific concepts;
  • verify ethical compliance and accuracy of citations.

An essential element of the review is the assessment of the author’s individual contribution.

Reviewers should also comment on clarity, logic, and accessibility of presentation, and assess the authenticity and validity of conclusions.

  1. Manuscripts may be reconsidered in cases of:
  • insufficient reviewer expertise;
  • low-quality initial review;
  • significant disagreement with manuscript content.

The review is submitted to the editor via email as a scanned document.

The editorial office sends anonymized review copies to authors or provides a reasoned rejection.

  1. The final publication decision is made by the editorial board based on peer review results and scientific quality.

Possible decisions include:

  • accept for publication;
  • accept after revision;
  • send for re-review;
  •  

The editorial board is not obliged to follow reviewer recommendations strictly and may make an independent decision based on scientific justification.

In case of conflicting reviews, the editorial board may:

  • appoint an additional reviewer;
  • conduct further editorial evaluation;
  • make a decision based on a consolidated assessment.

Editorial decisions are final.

Authors must revise manuscripts according to reviewer comments and submit a response explaining changes or justifying disagreements.

Failure to revise within the deadline or ignoring significant comments may result in rejection.

  1. All manuscripts are additionally checked for originality using specialized plagiarism detection software.

Standard review time: 10 business days
Average time to first decision: 20-30 business days.