Review Procedure

General Provisions and Ethical Standards

All articles submitted to the editorial office undergo a mandatory double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of reviewers and authors are not disclosed to each other.

Reviewers follow the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scientific content, regardless of race, gender, nationality, religion, or political beliefs. The procedure is aimed at providing the most objective assessment of the scientific novelty and theoretical significance of the materials.

  • Conflict of Interest and Reviewer Responsibilities
    Reviewers are not allowed to use manuscript materials or research results for their own benefit until official publication.
  • If a direct or indirect conflict of interest is identified (co-authorship, joint grants, academic supervision, or personal relationships with the author), the reviewer must immediately inform the editorial office and decline to evaluate the manuscript.
  • The reviewer must provide reasoned criticism, avoiding personal remarks directed at the author.
  • Purpose of Review and Evaluation Criteria
    The purpose of peer review is to ensure rigorous selection of manuscripts for publication and to provide specific recommendations for improvement. The procedure involves a comprehensive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the article, including:
    • Relevance to the journal’s scope.
    • Scientific novelty and topicality of the problem.
    • Validity of results and correctness of statistical analysis.
    • Compliance with citation standards (APA 7th edition) and presence of DOI.
    • Compliance with technical requirements for manuscript preparation.
  • Confidentiality Policy
    Peer review of manuscripts is confidential. By submitting a manuscript for review, authors entrust editors with the results of their scientific work and creative efforts, which may affect their reputation and career.

Disclosure of confidential details of the peer review process violates the author’s rights (see section “Confidentiality Policy”).

Editors and members of the editorial board do not disclose information related to the manuscript (including receipt, content, review process, reviewers’ comments, and final decision) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers.

Articles that do not meet the journal’s scope or formatting requirements (see “Author Guidelines”) may be rejected at the stage of preliminary technical screening without being sent for peer review.

Regulations and Review Outcomes

The standard review process lasts up to 4 working weeks. Based on reviewers’ conclusions, the editorial office decides on:

  1. Acceptance of the article for publication.
  2. Return to the author for revision, together with the reviewer’s anonymous feedback. After revision according to the reviewer’s comments, authors resubmit the corrected manuscript along with a cover letter explaining the changes. The re-review period is up to 2 working weeks.
  3. Rejection of the article (in case of non-compliance with scientific standards). If comments are provided, the author must address them or provide a reasoned response to each remark.

Review Procedure and Stages

  1. The author submits an article that complies with the journal’s policy. Manuscripts not meeting the “Author Guidelines” are not registered and not considered, with the editorial office notifying the author.
  2. Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief (or, by delegation, a member of the editorial board). Reviewers may be board members or external highly qualified experts (usually Doctors of Science, Professors).
  3. Interaction between authors and reviewers occurs exclusively through the journal editor.
  4. The reviewer completes a standard form, evaluating the theoretical and methodological level, scientific significance, and adherence to ethical norms.
  5. If corrections are required, the author has 1 week to return the revised article. The updated version must include a cover letter with responses to all comments.
  6. The date of receiving a positive conclusion is considered the date of acceptance of the article for publication. The final issue composition is confirmed by the Academic Council protocol.
  7. The approved article is forwarded to the technical editor. Minor stylistic edits that do not alter content may be made without author approval.

Rights and Responsibilities of the Parties

For the reviewer:

  • Provide a written review or a reasoned refusal within the timeframe agreed with the editor.
  • Reviewers are strictly prohibited from making copies of the manuscript or using its data before official publication.
  • Any recommendation for rejection or revision must be thoroughly justified.

For the author:

  • In case of disagreement with the reviewer’s conclusions, the author has the right to provide a reasoned response. In such cases, the article may be sent for re-review or considered by the editorial board.
  • The author bears full responsibility for the accuracy of facts, validity of conclusions, and compliance with copyright. The scientific and practical level of the article is jointly the responsibility of the author and reviewer.
  • Delay in returning the revised article (more than 1 week) automatically changes the date of its submission for publication.

Instructions for Authors:
Preparing responses to reviewers’ comments. If your article is recommended for revision, the author must submit two documents to the editorial office:

  1. The revised manuscript, with all changes highlighted (e.g., yellow marker) or using the “Track Changes” function in Word.
  2. A cover letter with responses to reviewers’ comments.

The reviewer should not have to search for your corrections throughout the article — specify the exact page and paragraph in your responses. Address every comment: do not ignore any point. If you do not make a change, explain the scientific reason.