Review policy

1. General Principles of Peer Review

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

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

The peer review process is based on the following principles:

  • scientific rigor and professional competence in evaluation;
  • objectivity and impartiality;
  • confidentiality;
  • constructive feedback;
  • compliance with the principles 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 evaluation of the scientific value of the material, identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, and provide the editorial board with grounds for making an informed decision regarding publication.

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

2. Preliminary Editorial Review

After submission, the manuscript undergoes a preliminary editorial review (desk review), the purpose of which is to determine whether the submitted material complies with the journal’s basic requirements before being sent for peer review.

At this stage, the editorial board evaluates:

  • compliance of the manuscript with the journal’s thematic profile and scientific focus;
  • consistency between the title and the content of the article;
  • the presence of a clearly formulated scientific problem;
  • the relevance and scientific novelty of the research;
  • the validity of the objectives, tasks, and methodology;
  • the sufficiency and logical presentation of the results;
  • the consistency of conclusions with the obtained results;
  • the availability and correctness of references to current scientific sources;
  • compliance with formatting and structural requirements;
  • adherence to the principles of academic integrity, including the absence of plagiarism.

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

Typical grounds for rejection at this stage include:

  • mismatch with the journal’s scope;
  • lack of scientific novelty or research problem;
  • descriptive or compilatory nature of the material without original scientific contribution;
  • insufficient justification of the methodology or absence of a methodological approach;
  • inconsistency between conclusions and presented results;
  • significant violations of structural or formatting requirements;
  • detected signs of academic misconduct.

The preliminary editorial review is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or members of the editorial board.

3. Selection and Appointment of Reviewers

Peer review of manuscripts is carried out by members of the editorial board and independent experts who possess appropriate scientific 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 manuscript topic;
  • availability of recent scientific publications in the relevant field;
  • experience in research or expert activities;
  • absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or their affiliated institutions.

Both domestic and international scholars may be invited to participate in the review process.

Each manuscript is generally sent to at least two independent reviewers. If necessary (particularly in the case of conflicting reviews or highly specialized topics), the editorial board may involve additional experts.

Before appointing a reviewer, the editorial board verifies the absence of potential conflicts of interest.

A reviewer may decline the review assignment if:

  • the manuscript topic falls outside their expertise;
  • a conflict of interest exists;
  • they are unable to complete the review within the established timeframe.

The editorial board seeks to ensure a balance of expert opinions and strives to involve reviewers from different institutions and academic environments in order to enhance the objectivity of the review process.

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 conducted in the form of an independent expert assessment of the scientific content of the manuscript.

Reviewers analyze the submitted material and provide reasoned conclusions and recommendations regarding the possibility of 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.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

The manuscript is evaluated according to the following main criteria:

  • relevance to the journal’s thematic profile;
  • presence of a clearly formulated scientific problem;
  • relevance and scientific novelty of the research;
  • validity and adequacy of the methodology;
  • logical structure of the study;
  • reliability and completeness of the presented results;
  • consistency of conclusions with the obtained results;
  • quality of engagement with current scientific sources;
  • scientific contribution to the development of the relevant field;
  • quality of academic writing and text formatting.

Special attention is paid to the author’s original scientific contribution and avoidance of a compilatory nature of the material.

Reviewers’ Recommendations

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

  • accept the manuscript without changes;
  • accept after minor revisions;
  • request major revisions with repeated peer review;
  • reject the manuscript.

Quality of Reviews

The editorial board monitors the quality of reviews and may:

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

The goal is to ensure meaningful and professional evaluation of manuscripts rather than the formal completion of the review procedure.

5. Editorial Decisions Based on Peer Review Results

The final decision regarding publication of a manuscript is made by the editorial board based on the results of peer review 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 repeated peer review;
  • reject the manuscript.

The editorial board is not obliged to automatically agree with reviewers’ recommendations. If scientifically justified, a decision different from the reviewers’ conclusions may be made.

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

  • involve an additional reviewer;
  • conduct additional editorial analysis;
  • make a decision based on a comprehensive assessment.

Editorial decisions are final.

6. Revision and Reconsideration of Manuscripts

If reviewers provide comments, authors are required to revise the manuscript in accordance with the recommendations received.

Together with the revised manuscript, authors must submit a response to the reviewers explaining:

  • the changes made;
  • the reasons for disagreement with specific comments, where applicable.

Authors have the right to disagree with reviewers’ recommendations, provided that clear scientific justification is given.

In the case of substantial revisions, the manuscript may be sent for repeated peer review.

Failure to submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe or disregard of significant comments may result in rejection.

7. Confidentiality, Integrity, and Conflict of Interest

All materials submitted to the journal are treated as confidential.

Reviewers are not permitted to:

  • share the manuscript with 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 peer review process.

8. Manuscript Review Timeframes

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

The duration of the peer review process depends on the complexity of the topic, the length of the manuscript, and the availability of reviewers, and may take several weeks.

The editorial board makes every effort to adhere to reasonable review timelines and to promptly inform authors about the status of their manuscripts.