All scientific manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a mandatory peer review process to ensure the high quality of publications, the reliability of research results, and the compliance of submitted materials with the journal’s scientific scope.
The journal applies the double-blind peer review procedure, in which the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers, and the reviewers do not have information about the authors of the manuscript. This approach ensures objectivity and impartiality in the evaluation of scientific materials.
Peer Review Workflow
The peer review process of the journal consists of several consecutive stages.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
After submission to the editorial office, the manuscript undergoes a preliminary assessment for compliance with:
the journal’s thematic scope;
formatting requirements;
principles of academic integrity;
structural requirements for a scientific article.
At this stage, the editorial office also checks the manuscript for plagiarism.
If the manuscript does not meet the basic requirements, it may be returned to the author for revision or rejected without being sent for peer review.
2. Appointment of Reviewers
After the preliminary screening, the manuscript is sent for peer review. The Editor-in-Chief or a member of the editorial board appoints at least two independent reviewers who have relevant scientific expertise in the field of the submitted manuscript.
Reviewer Selection Criteria
When selecting reviewers, the editorial office considers the following criteria:
correspondence between the reviewer’s scientific expertise and the topic of the manuscript;
the presence of scientific publications in the relevant field;
an academic degree or substantial research experience;
absence of conflicts of interest with the authors of the manuscript;
adherence to the principles of research ethics and academic integrity.
3. Conducting the Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:
relevance and scientific novelty of the research;
methodology and reliability of the obtained results;
logical structure and clarity of presentation;
validity of conclusions;
compliance of the manuscript with scientific standards.
Review Timeframe
Peer review is carried out within a timeframe established by the editorial office. As a rule, reviewers prepare their reports within 14–22 days from the date of receiving the manuscript. If necessary, this period may be extended upon agreement with the editorial office.
Form of Review
The review is prepared in written form (via the editorial system or by e-mail) and contains an expert evaluation of the manuscript.
4. Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editor-in-Chief or the editorial board makes one of the following decisions:
accept the manuscript for publication;
accept the manuscript after minor revisions;
request major revisions with subsequent re-review;
reject the manuscript.
5. Manuscript Revision
If revisions are required, the author receives the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. The author must address the reviewers’ remarks and submit a revised version of the manuscript within the time specified by the editorial office.
If necessary, the revised manuscript may be sent to reviewers for an additional round of review.
6. Acceptance for Publication
After a positive editorial decision, the manuscript is accepted for publication and proceeds to the editorial production stage (copyediting, proofreading, and layout preparation).
