Peer Review Process
Jounal follows a double-blind review process, meaning:
- reviewers are unaware of the authors’ personal details;
- authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
All articles submitted to the journal are first checked for compliance with the requirements set out in the "Terms of Publication" section. Only those manuscripts that pass the initial review and copyright check are considered for peer review. Manuscripts must be formatted according to the "General Requirements"
The initial evaluation is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or their deputy. If the Editor-in-Chief has a personal interest in the publication (e.g., is the author, co-author, or has family or professional ties with the authors), the review is carried out by the deputy editor or another editorial board member who has no conflict of interest. All materials must be relevant to the journal’s focus. If the submission meets the journal’s publication requirements, it is passed to the technical editor for registration and anonymisation.
The anonymous manuscript is sent to the editorial board member responsible for the relevant scientific field, as well as two external reviewers. Reviewers are selected from PhDs who specialise in the same scientific area as the author(s). Reviewers receive a letter requesting their review, along with the anonymous manuscript and a standard review form. Reviewers must not have any affiliations with the author’s institution and must not be in a conflict of interest.
During the review process, the reviewers assess the following aspects:
- whether the content of the article aligns with the declared topic;
- the novelty and relevance of the scientific problem addressed;
- the justification for the practical significance of the research;
- the value of the work for a wide audience.
After the review, the reviewers may:
- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for publication after minor revisions;
- recommend the article for publication after significant revisions;
- recommend rejecting the article.
If the reviewers recommend rejection or revisions, they must provide a written explanation for their decision. The review process should be completed within two weeks of receiving the article. All reviews, whether signed electronically or in writing, are kept in the journal’s archive for three years from the publication date of the issue in which the reviewed article appears.
The editorial decision is communicated to the author(s). Articles requiring revisions are sent with the review text, but the reviewers’ identities remain anonymous. After revisions are made, the article is resubmitted for further review, where additional changes may be requested. Revisions do not guarantee publication. If the reviewers find the changes inadequate, the article will be rejected.
The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the reviews and makes the final decision based on them, considering all recommendations and the article's compliance with the journal’s standards. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decision-making regarding articles authored by themselves, their family members, or colleagues, or materials related to products or services in which they have a personal interest. In such cases, articles undergo independent review. The final decision is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.
