Peer-review process
All manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board undergo a peer review procedure. The purpose of peer review is to ensure a rigorous selection of manuscripts for publication and to provide specific recommendations for their improvement. The review process is aimed at an objective evaluation of the scientific content of the manuscript, determining its compliance with the journal’s requirements, and providing a comprehensive analysis of its strengths and weaknesses.
The journal applies a double-blind peer review model, in which neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. By submitting a manuscript for review, authors entrust the editors with the results of their scientific work and creative efforts, which may affect their reputation and career. Disclosure of confidential details of the peer review process constitutes a violation of the authors’ rights. Editors do not disclose any information related to the manuscript (including its receipt, content, review process, reviewers’ comments, and final decision) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. Breaches of confidentiality are permitted only in cases of suspected misconduct or falsification; in all other cases, confidentiality must be strictly maintained.
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The author submits a manuscript that complies with the journal’s policies and submission requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements are not registered and are not considered further; the authors are notified accordingly. Each manuscript is registered by the Executive Secretary, indicating the date of submission, title, author(s), and affiliation(s), and is assigned a unique identification number.
The Executive Secretary conducts an initial screening of submitted manuscripts to assess their relevance to the journal’s scope and subject area and forwards them for peer review to members of the Editorial Board, section editors, or external experts.
All manuscripts are assigned to two independent reviewers according to the subject area. Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief. In certain cases, this responsibility may be delegated to a member of the Editorial Board. In specific situations, reviewer selection may be decided collectively at an Editorial Board meeting.
Reviewers may include both members of the Editorial Board and external highly qualified experts with relevant academic expertise and professional experience, typically holding doctoral degrees and academic titles.
Upon receiving a manuscript (within 4 days), the reviewer assesses their ability to review it based on their expertise and the absence of any conflict of interest. In case of competing interests, the reviewer may decline the review and must inform the Editorial Board, which will appoint another reviewer.
As a rule, reviewers provide their reports within 2–4 weeks. In certain cases, the review period may be extended to ensure a thorough and objective evaluation but should not exceed 6 weeks.
The review process is conducted confidentially under the principles of double-blind peer review. Communication between authors and reviewers is mediated by the Executive Secretary. At the reviewer’s request and with the approval of the Editorial Board, communication may be conducted in an open manner if it improves the clarity and quality of the manuscript.
All submitted manuscripts are checked for textual originality using appropriate software, which identifies the level of originality, sources, and extent of overlap (e.g., StrikePlagiarism.com by Plagiat.pl).
After completing the review, the reviewer fills out a standard review form containing final recommendations. The Editorial Office informs the author of the review results via email. For each manuscript, the following editorial history is recorded:
date of submission;
date of the first decision;
date of acceptance for publication;
number of review rounds.
If revisions are required, the manuscript is returned to the author with reviewers’ comments. The author must submit a revised version along with a response letter addressing all comments. The revised manuscript is re-evaluated by the reviewer. The date of acceptance is considered the date when a positive review (or Editorial Board decision) is received.
If the author disagrees with the reviewer’s comments, they may submit a reasoned response. In such cases, the manuscript may be reconsidered by the Editorial Board or sent for an additional review by another expert. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject manuscripts if authors fail to adequately address reviewers’ comments.
The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief (or a delegated Editorial Board member), or, if necessary, by the Editorial Board collectively. The author is informed of the decision and the expected publication timeline.
Accepted manuscripts are included in the journal’s publication queue according to priority and relevance. In exceptional cases, the Editor-in-Chief may decide on priority publication.
The final list of published articles is approved by a formal decision of the Academic Council of the University, which is indicated in the journal issue.
Accepted manuscripts are forwarded to the technical editor. Minor stylistic or formatting corrections that do not affect the content may be made without author approval. If necessary, or upon request, the final layout is sent to the author for approval.
The author is responsible for copyright compliance and adherence to academic standards. Responsibility for the accuracy of facts, validity of conclusions, and scientific quality of the article lies with both the author and the reviewer.
