Peer-review process

The journal applies a structured peer review system aimed at ensuring the scientific quality, originality, and reliability of published materials. The journal uses a double-blind peer review process, in which neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other’s identities.

The selection of reviewers is carried out by the editorial board based on the relevance of their scientific expertise to the subject of the submitted manuscript, their publication record in peer-reviewed journals, absence of conflicts of interest, and prior reviewing experience (where applicable). Independent external experts may be engaged when necessary to ensure objective evaluation.

The review timeline is defined by the journal’s editorial workflow. Reviewers are given a specified period to complete their assessment, which may be extended in justified cases. On average, the review process takes approximately three weeks. Authors are informed about the status of their manuscript and may be requested to revise their submission.

The evaluation criteria include scientific originality, methodological soundness, relevance to the journal’s scope, clarity of presentation, validity of results, quality of references, and compliance with ethical standards. Based on the review, a structured report is provided along with one of the following recommendations: accept, accept after minor revisions, accept after major revisions, or reject.

Documentation of the peer review process is carried out via email correspondence. Review reports are submitted by reviewers to the official editorial email address of the journal and are stored in the editorial archive. All related correspondence is recorded to ensure transparency and traceability of editorial decisions.

Decision-making is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or section editors, taking into account reviewers’ recommendations. The final decision is communicated to authors in written form, along with anonymized reviewer comments where applicable.