REVIEW POLICY

The editorial policy of the publication is based on the principles of objectivity and strict adherence to academic integrity. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office undergo a mandatory multi-stage evaluation to ensure high scientific quality and compliance with international standards. The Editorial Board guarantees that the decision to accept or reject an article is based exclusively on: the scientific level of the work; compliance with the journal’s scope; and ethical standards. It does not depend on: the author's status; institutional affiliation; or external influence.

Each manuscript requires at least two peer reviews to be approved for publication.

Stages of the Review Process

1. Preliminary Review (Desk Reject/Accept) Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editorial office conducts an initial assessment. At this stage, the material is analyzed for compliance with the journal's scope, general formatting requirements, and the relevance of the stated topic. A mandatory element is a check for improper citations (plagiarism) using specialized software tools.

In case of significant non-compliance with the internal criteria of the publication or violations of academic ethics, the editorial board reserves the right to reject the material without further consideration. This procedure is carried out with the participation of the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized member of the Editorial Board, provided they have no conflict of interest regarding the submitted work.

The review of manuscripts submitted by members of the Editorial Board or persons involved in the editorial and publishing process follows an algorithm that excludes conflicts of interest (involving an Editorial Board member who has no administrative or professional dependence on the author).

2. Peer Review Materials that pass the initial control are sent for independent review. The journal adheres to a double-blind peer review model, where the personal data of both authors and reviewers are not disclosed to either party. The evaluation involves experts with relevant scientific experience in the specific field of the article. These may be members of the Editorial Board or external experts.

Reviewing is carried out within reasonable timeframes, usually determined by the technical capacity of the editorial office and the publication schedule. The average review period is 14–30 days. The editorial office maintains communication with experts to ensure the efficiency of the process. Based on the analysis, reviewers provide their conclusions on the suitability of the publication. In case of conflicting reviews, the editorial board may seek an additional expert opinion.

If there are comments, the author is obliged to address them, revise the text, and resubmit the corrected manuscript along with comprehensive responses to the reviewer's comments. In the absence of comments or after their proper consideration, the article proceeds to the stage of literary and technical editing.

3. Decision Making The final decision regarding the acceptance of the article for publication is made by the Editorial Board, guided by the principles of scientific quality and the ethical standards of the journal, based on the reviewers' conclusions. All reviewers hold qualifications consistent with the standards of a professional scientific publication. The review process ensures fairness, objectivity, impartiality, and the timely evaluation of materials.

Possible Decisions:

  • Recommendation for publication (in its original form or considering the provided suggestions);

  • Acceptance after minor revision (incorporating minor corrections as recommended by reviewers);

  • Revision and resubmission (necessitating a second round of review);

  • Rejection of the manuscript (if the scientific level does not meet the journal's standards or if identified errors cannot be corrected).

Authors are informed of the status of their submission. If comments are provided, authors must ensure proper correction of the text or provide a reasoned justification for their position. The Editorial Board reserves the right to make the final decision, guided by the interests of scientific quality and ethical standards.