The Peer Review Procedure

The Journal employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure objectivity, impartiality, and the scientific quality of publications. The identities of both authors and reviewers remain mutually anonymous at all stages of the review process.

1. Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment, which includes:

ü compliance with the scope and aims of the Journal;

ü adherence to formatting requirements;

ü screening for academic integrity (plagiarism and self-plagiarism);

ü evaluation of the scientific quality and originality of the manuscript.

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who:

ü possess relevant academic expertise in the subject area;

ü have no conflict of interest with the authors;

ü are not affiliated with the same institution as the authors.

The Journal may engage both internal and external (including international) experts.

3. Review Process

Manuscripts are evaluated based on the following criteria:

ü scientific novelty and relevance of the research;

ü methodological rigor;

ü validity and reliability of the results;

ü logical coherence of structure and argumentation;

ü compliance with ethical standards;

ü quality of language and academic writing.

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

ü accept without revisions;

ü accept with minor revisions;

ü request major revisions;

ü reject.

4. Revision Stage

If revisions are required, authors must:

ü provide a detailed response to reviewers’ comments (response to reviewers);

ü revise the manuscript accordingly;

ü clearly indicate all changes made.

Where necessary, the revised manuscript may be subjected to additional rounds of peer review.

5. Editorial Decision

The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on:

ü reviewers’ reports;

ü alignment with the Journal’s scope;

ü the scientific significance of the manuscript.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject a manuscript at any stage of the review process.

6. Review Timeline

The average review timeline is as follows:

ü initial editorial screening: 5–10 days;

ü peer review: 2–4 weeks;

ü full review cycle (including revisions): 4–8 weeks.

7. Confidentiality and Ethics

Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript.

The use of manuscript content without the authors’ permission is strictly prohibited.

Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

The use of AI tools that may compromise confidentiality is prohibited.

8. Appeals

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned response to reviewers’ comments. Appeals are considered in accordance with the Journal’s policy on complaints and appeals.