Peer review
The journal accepts original scholarly materials prepared exclusively in English and not previously published in other editions. Articles must correspond to the thematic focus of the journal and comply with the requirements of the editorial policy.
Manuscript submission is carried out only through the Open Journal System platform, where the corresponding author submits the application, provides the required information, adds the article metadata, and uploads the manuscript file in the prescribed format.
Organization of the peer-review process
To conduct expert evaluation of manuscripts, qualified specialists with academic degrees and proven research achievements are engaged. Reviewers must work in the relevant field of knowledge and have publication experience in the subject area of the submitted manuscript. If necessary, experts from external scientific organizations may be invited.
The reviewer is required to comply with the ethical conduct requirements established by the editorial office during the review process, ensuring the objectivity of judgments and the appropriateness of comments. If the reviewer is unable to complete the evaluation within the established timeframe, they must notify the editorial office, stating the reason for the refusal.
The review period is determined by the editorial office and generally does not exceed one month from the date the manuscript is sent for evaluation. In certain cases, the period may be extended, for example, when an additional expert is engaged.
The peer-review procedure involves several sequential stages:
1. Preliminary analysis by the specialist responsible for editorial coordination of the article, assessing the structure of the manuscript, its compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting, and the presence of required elements.
2. Verification of the text’s originality using specialized software and analysis of possible matches and borrowings.
3. Expert evaluation by reviewers based on the principles of double-blind peer review, which ensures the independence of conclusions.
In cases where necessary, the manuscript may be forwarded to multiple reviewers.
Based on the results of the evaluation, the reviewer prepares a conclusion and proposes one of the following decisions:
- recommend the manuscript for publication without changes;
- accept after revision of certain components of the work;
- request substantial revision followed by repeated review;
- reject the manuscript.
If the author is asked to make adjustments, the reviewer indicates specific comments, formulates recommendations for correcting deficiencies and, if necessary, provides links to individual fragments of the text.
In case of differing assessments from multiple reviewers, the editorial office appoints an additional expert. The conclusion of the third specialist becomes the basis for making the final decision. The editorial office also reserves the right to discontinue consideration of the material if clear signs of unethical use of sources or unreliable data are identified.
Upon completion of the peer-review procedure, the editorial board issues the final decision:
- the manuscript is accepted for publication;
- the author receives recommendations for mandatory revision;
- the material is rejected.
The reviews prepared as a result of the manuscript evaluation are stored in the editorial archive in electronic form for a specified period of time. The author receives a copy of the review or a reasoned rejection.
