Review procedure

Peer review in the journal is a key mechanism for ensuring scientific quality and adherence to professional standards. Its primary objective is to guarantee that published materials comply with academic integrity requirements, demonstrate a sufficient level of scientific validity, and do not contradict ethical principles. Reviewers must act impartially, avoid conflicts of interest, and follow the standards defined in the journal’s publication ethics.

After submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening. At this stage:

  • compliance with the journal’s thematic scope is assessed;
  • adherence to technical and formatting requirements is verified;
  • checks for potential copyright violations are conducted.

Only manuscripts that meet all formal criteria are admitted to further expert evaluation.

A preliminary content assessment is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief. At this stage, it is evaluated whether the article has publication potential, aligns with the journal’s scope, and demonstrates sufficient scientific relevance and quality.

If the Editor-in-Chief cannot evaluate the manuscript due to a conflict of interest, such as personal or professional relationships with the authors or co-authorship, the manuscript is assigned to another member of the editorial board.

Following approval at this stage, the technical editor anonymizes the manuscript and assigns it a unique code. The anonymized manuscript is then sent for review to a qualified expert, holding a doctoral or candidate degree, whose specialization closely matches the topic of the article.

Main evaluation criteria

During the review process, experts assess:

  • the consistency between the title and the actual content of the article;
  • the relevance of the topic and the level of scientific novelty;
  • the methodological clarity and correctness of the research;
  • the practical significance of the results obtained;
  • the logical structure, validity of conclusions, and overall value of the material for the scientific community.

Based on the review, experts provide a general conclusion regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication. Where necessary, reviewers also identify strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and suggest ways for improvement.

Possible review outcomes

After evaluation, reviewers may issue one of the following recommendations:

  • the article may be published without revisions;
  • the article is recommended for publication subject to minor revisions;
  • substantial revision is required;
  • the article is not recommended for publication.

In cases of rejection or required revision, reviewers provide detailed comments justifying their conclusions.

Post-review communication with the author

The author receives the editorial decision along with a complete set of recommendations for improving the manuscript. If necessary, the revised article is resubmitted and may undergo additional or repeated peer review. Reviewers have the right to request further clarifications or revisions.

Even after substantial revisions, a manuscript may be rejected if its quality remains insufficient or if reviewers’ comments have not been adequately addressed.

Final decision

The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewers’ evaluations and the overall compliance of the manuscript with the journal’s requirements. In cases involving a conflict of interest, the final decision is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.

The typical review period is 1 to 2 weeks.

The average time to first decision is 2 to 4 weeks.