Peer review

Double-blind peer review

The journal uses double-blind peer review: the reviewer’s identity is not disclosed to the author, and the author’s identity is not disclosed to the reviewer. This approach is intended to reduce the influence of personal and institutional factors on the expert assessment.

Initial editorial screening

Before sending a manuscript to a reviewer, the editorial office checks that it matches the journal’s scope, that the materials are complete, that basic formatting requirements are met, and that required ethical declarations are present.

A manuscript may be returned to the author before review if it falls outside the journal’s scope or requires correction of substantial formal deficiencies.

Reviewer assignment

Reviewers are selected with regard to the manuscript’s topic, scientific expertise, and the absence of an obvious conflict of interest. The editorial office seeks to ensure independent expert evaluation.

Review criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, the reviewer assesses:

• the relevance and scientific significance of the topic;
• the originality and validity of the research;
• the appropriateness of the methods used;
• the reliability and interpretation of the results;
• the logic of the structure and clarity of presentation;
• the soundness of the conclusions;
• the quality and appropriateness of the sources used.

Review outcomes

Following expert evaluation, the reviewer may recommend publication, revision, or rejection. Comments are forwarded to the author in editorial form without disclosing the reviewer’s identity.

Revision

If revision is required, the author must submit a revised manuscript and address the reviewer’s comments. A reasoned response may be provided for substantial comments with which the author disagrees.

If necessary, the revised manuscript may be sent for further expert evaluation.

Editorial decision

The final publication decision is made by the editorial office, taking into account expert reports, the quality of revision, and the manuscript’s compliance with editorial policy.

Confidentiality and conflicts of interest

The manuscript and materials received during review are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal purposes.

If circumstances could affect the objectivity of the assessment, the reviewer must decline the review and inform the editorial office.

Appeals and reconsideration

Authors may submit a reasoned objection to an editorial decision. The editorial office considers the appeal in light of the review, the author’s position, and the manuscript materials.