Reviewing process

The mandatory stage before peer review is checking the article for plagiarism.

Peer Review Workflow

  1. Initial technical screening (formal compliance). The manuscript is checked for compliance with the journal’s formal requirements (formatting, citation style and reference list, article structure, etc.). If any violations are identified, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) for revision.
  2. Plagiarism / text similarity check. The manuscript is screened for textual borrowings. Manuscripts in which unacceptable textual overlap is detected are rejected immediately.
  3. Preliminary editorial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript’s scope, relevance, and originality, which serves as the basis for deciding whether it should be sent for peer review.
  4. Assignment to reviewers (double-blind). A manuscript that meets the formatting requirements, is clearly structured, contains no textual overlap, and presents original research results is anonymized (authors’ identities removed) and sent to two independent reviewers who are subject-matter experts in the relevant field.
  5. Expert evaluation by reviewers. Reviewers examine the manuscript and conduct their independent evaluation. The review process typically takes several weeks.
  6. Reviewer recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers submit their reports to the Editor-in-Chief with a recommendation to accept or reject the manuscript. A review may include recommendations for revision and correction; in such cases, the manuscript may be conditionally recommended for publication. After the authors address reviewers’ comments, the manuscript may be recommended for publication.
  7. Third review in case of divergent assessments. If the reviewers’ evaluations differ substantially, the Editor-in-Chief forwards the manuscript to a third reviewer.
  8. Communication of anonymized reviews to authors. The editorial office emails the author team the review texts without identifying the reviewer(s), in accordance with the anonymity principle. The message indicates the preliminary decision (acceptance or rejection), provides reasons for rejection (if applicable), and sets deadlines for revision.
  9. Resubmission and response to reviewers. After revision in line with reviewers’ comments, the manuscript is resubmitted to the same reviewer(s) for re-evaluation. The authors complete a structured response form explaining the changes made.
  10. Editorial Board decision. At an Editorial Board meeting, the peer review outcomes and authors’ revisions are discussed, and a final decision is made regarding the selection of manuscripts for the upcoming issue.
  11. Notification of final decision. Following the Editorial Board meeting, authors are notified of the decision about inclusion in the upcoming issue, rejection, or deferral to the next issue if reviewers’ comments were not fully addressed.

Peer Review Requirements (as stipulated in the journal’s editorial policy):

Peer review of manuscripts submitted to the journal is conducted in accordance with the principles of impartiality and objectivity. The evaluation is based exclusively on the scientific and technical quality of the material. All materials provided for review are treated as confidential and may not be disclosed or used outside the expert evaluation process. Reviewers are required to act ethically, avoid biased judgments, and decline to review in the event of a conflict of interest.

Reviewers must have appropriate scientific and/or professional competence in the relevant field to ensure a high-quality evaluation. A reviewer should accept an assignment only if they are able to provide a timely and substantive review.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts against the following criteria:

– Topic relevance (alignment with current scientific and practical challenges);

– Scientific novelty (originality of results, methods, and approaches);

– Theoretical and practical significance (value for the research community and practice);

– Methodological rigor (validity of experiments and correctness of methods applied);

– Structure and presentation (logical organization, compliance with journal requirements, accuracy of references);

– Language and style quality (clarity and academic writing style).

Peer Review Procedure

– Review model – Double-blind (neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities);

– Number of reviewers – At least two per manuscript;

– Review timelines – Defined depending on manuscript complexity, typically 2–3 weeks;

– Review format – A written review using a structured template (overall assessment, strengths, weaknesses, recommendations).

Possible Reviewer Decisions

– Accept without changes;

– Accept with minor revisions;

– Return for revision with re-review;

– Reject.

Control and Quality Assurance

– The editorial office may appoint an additional reviewer in the case of conflicting reviews;

– All reviews are retained in the journal’s editorial archive;

– Authors are given the opportunity to respond to reviewers’ comments;

– The use of plagiarism detection software is a mandatory step prior to peer review.