Peer review is an integral component of the editorial process and is aimed at ensuring the high quality of scholarly publications. It involves obtaining independent expert evaluations for each submitted manuscript.

Only manuscripts that comply with the journal’s Submission Guidelines are considered for peer review.

The journal applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

The editorial office ensures the objectivity and impartiality of the review process. Reviewers are required to adhere to the principles of publication ethics, including the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and to act in a fair, confidential, and unbiased manner.

Reviewers must not have any conflicts of interest related to the authors, their institutions, or the content of the manuscript. In the event of a potential conflict of interest, the reviewer must notify the editorial office, and an alternative reviewer will be assigned.

The review process is conducted on a strictly confidential basis. Manuscripts and associated materials must not be disclosed or used for personal purposes without the author’s consent.

In their reports, reviewers provide a reasoned and substantiated evaluation and select one of the following recommendations:

1) accept the manuscript without revisions;

2) accept the manuscript subject to minor revisions;

3) request major revisions with subsequent re-review;

4) reject the manuscript.

Prior to peer review, all submissions undergo an initial editorial screening (desk review), which includes an assessment of the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope, its academic quality, and compliance with formal requirements and principles of academic integrity.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are anonymized by removing all identifying information to ensure the integrity of the double-blind review process.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, publication record, and expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area. The editorial office assigns reviewers taking into account their specialization, academic reputation, and current workload, as well as their consent to review.

Reviewers receive the anonymized manuscript along with a standard review form and a formal invitation letter.

The standard review period is typically 2 to 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the manuscript, although it may vary depending on the complexity of the submission and reviewer availability.

The final decision regarding publication is made by the editorial board based on the reviewers’ reports. The editorial office reserves the right to make the final decision on acceptance or rejection.

The editorial decision is communicated to the author(s) via email. If revisions are required, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) along with reviewers’ comments.

Revised manuscripts may be subject to a second round of peer review. In the case of a repeated negative evaluation, the manuscript is rejected and will not be considered further.

Authors have the right to submit a reasoned response to reviewers’ comments. In such cases, the editorial board may initiate an additional or independent review by another expert.

The editorial office does not engage in further correspondence regarding rejected manuscripts, except in cases of formally submitted and justified appeals.

Reviewer Selection Criteria

Reviewers are selected based on: academic qualifications and the possession of a relevant academic degree; research experience in the subject area of the manuscript; recent publication activity in peer-reviewed journals; proficiency in modern research methodologies.

Reviewers are expected to: adhere to the principles of academic integrity; provide objective, well-reasoned, and constructive evaluations; maintain confidentiality and comply with double-blind review standards; complete reviews within the established deadlines.

Review Timeline

The duration of the review process is determined by the editorial office, taking into account the need to ensure a thorough and high-quality evaluation of manuscripts.

Considering the time required for authors to revise manuscripts and for possible re-review, the overall review process may take one month or longer.

Reviewer Engagement

The role of a reviewer is an important component of a researcher’s professional development. The journal welcomes qualified scholars to join its pool of reviewers.

To participate in the peer review process, interested researchers are invited to register on the journal’s official website and indicate their areas of expertise.