Reviewing

Peer Review Procedure

After submission of the manuscript, a preliminary evaluation is carried out by the editorial office (the Editor-in-Chief or their deputy), during which the compliance of the article with the scope of the collection, formatting requirements, and general scientific standards is assessed. Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements may be rejected without being sent for peer review.

Articles that have successfully passed the preliminary evaluation are submitted for double-blind peer review, which ensures the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. Before being sent for review, all identifying information about the authors is removed from the manuscript.

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts, one of whom may be a member of the editorial board and the other an external specialist. At least one of the reviewers must represent an institution different from the authors’ affiliation.

Criteria for Selecting Reviewers

Reviewers are selected from highly qualified scholars who:

‒ hold an academic degree and have research experience in the relevant field;

‒ specialize in topics corresponding to the content of the submitted article;

‒ have no conflict of interest with the authors or the subject of the research;

‒ adhere to the principles of publication ethics and confidentiality.

Reviewers are required to evaluate manuscripts objectively, substantiate their comments, and inform the editorial office if any violations of academic integrity are detected.

Criteria for Evaluating Manuscripts

During the review process, the following are assessed:

‒ whether the topic of the article corresponds to the scope of the collection;

‒ the relevance and scientific novelty of the research;

‒ the validity and reliability of the obtained results;

‒ the practical significance of the work;

‒ the logical structure of the material and the quality of the scientific style;

‒ compliance with formatting requirements.

Review Timeline

The standard time for preparing a review is up to 4 weeks from the date the reviewer receives the manuscript. If the reviewer is unable to complete the review within the specified time, they must inform the editorial office so that another expert can be appointed.

Forms of Documentation

Peer review is conducted using a standardized review form, which includes both a qualitative assessment of the manuscript and recommendations regarding its suitability for publication. Reviews are used as the basis for editorial decisions and are stored by the editorial office. The retention period is 5 years.

Authors receive the text of the review without disclosure of the reviewer’s identity.

Decision-Making

Based on the review results, reviewers may make one of the following decisions:

‒ Accept the article in the author’s version;

‒ Accept with minor revisions to be agreed upon by the authors and the editorial board;

‒ Return the manuscript to the authors for revision (taking into account reviewers’ comments) with mandatory re-review after substantial changes;

‒ Reject with the possibility of resubmission after substantial revision (taking into account reviewers’ comments);

‒ Reject without the possibility of resubmission due to fundamental deficiencies;

‒ Reject due to the article’s lack of relevance to the journal’s scope.

In case of conflicting reviews, the manuscript may be sent to an additional reviewer. If two negative reviews are received, the article is rejected.

Reviewers’ comments requiring revision are forwarded to the author by the executive secretary of the collection. The author’s responses and the revised version of the article are then sent back to the reviewer. An article may be published only if two positive reviews are obtained.

The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board by majority vote and approved by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviews and the results of plagiarism checking.

Reviewers are required to:

‒ maintain confidentiality regarding the content of the reviewed article;

‒ avoid conflicts of interest;

‒ report any potential ethical violations or cases of plagiarism.