Reviewing Procedure

The purpose of the review process is to carefully select manuscripts for publication and to offer specific recommendations for their improvement. Reviewing aims to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript’s content, ensure it meets the journal’s requirements, and involve a thorough analysis of the material under consideration.

Upon receipt of the manuscript, authors will be notified through the electronic platform with a registration number and date of receipt provided. Each manuscript is assigned a unique registration number to ensure author anonymity during the review process.

The editorial team will conduct the preliminary review of the manuscript within three working days after submission to ensure its alignment with the journal’s scope and requirements. Editors have the discretion to reject the manuscript without peer review if it is deemed irrelevant to the journal’s scope or does not meet the required quality standards. 

Manuscripts that meet the scope and requirements of the journal are sent for review at least by two independent scholars or experts in the specific field of research, who are not part of the editorial team and board. The reviewers assess the theoretical and methodological aspects of the manuscript, its practical value, and its scientific significance. They also check for compliance with publication ethics principles and provide recommendations for revision. The reviewer's form can be found here. Additional reviewers may be engaged at the discretion of the editorial team. Based on reviewers' opinions, a decision is made regarding the publication of the material.

The review process follows the principle of double-blind peer review, where neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other. The reviewers are reminded that the manuscripts are the intellectual property of the authors and should not be disclosed. They are prohibited from discussing or citing the content of the manuscripts before publication.  

The reviewer should provide a well-reasoned statement if they suspect plagiarism or any other form of improper borrowing in the manuscript. This statement should be accompanied by an appropriate reference. If the reviewer has concerns about plagiarism, authorship, or data falsification, they are required to bring the matter to the attention of the editorial team and request a collective evaluation of the manuscript in question.

If the reviewer does not have a valid reason to refuse to review the manuscript, it is assumed that they agree to review it. The reviewers are expected to prepare their review within 14 working days from the date of its receipt and provide a conclusion regarding the potential publication of the manuscript. In certain cases, the review period can be extended to ensure a thorough and objective assessment of the manuscript.  

The reviewers are expected to submit their reviews on time, adhering to ethical and professional standards, in order to support the regular publication schedule of the journal.

If the reviewer behaves unethically towards authors, consistently provides low-quality reviews, or violates the terms for providing reviews, their relationship with the journal will be terminated.

The reviewers should assess whether they are qualified to review the materials provided based on their expertise in the author's research area.

If there is a conflict of interest between the reviewer's personal or professional relationships and the research results, or anything that could influence the reviewers' opinion, they must return the manuscript to the editorial team and disclose the conflict of interest.

A manuscript sent to the authors for revision must be returned in a corrected form within a period not exceeding 10 working days. The revised manuscript must be accompanied by a letter from the authors describing the corrections made and containing responses to all reviewer comments.

The editorial team reserves the right to change the publication order. The acceptance for publication does not imply publication in the next issue of the journal.

The editorial team reserves the right to make editorial changes to the text that do not distort the meaning of the manuscript. All editorial changes will be sent to the author(s) for confirmation. 

All communication between the editorial team, the author, and the reviewer is conducted through the electronic platform (OJS), and in exceptional cases, via email. The editorial team adheres to editorial ethics and does not disclose the process of working on a manuscript in the publishing house without the author’s consent. This includes refraining from discussing with anyone the merits or demerits of the work, comments, or corrections.