Review form

Peer Review Policy

The peer review procedure is intended to ensure a thorough selection of submitted manuscripts for publication.

A manuscript submitted by the author is, within two weeks, checked for compliance with the journal’s scope and formal requirements, including an analysis of the text for signs of plagiarism. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements are rejected. In the response letter, the Editorial Board informs the author(s) of receipt of the manuscript and whether it has been sent for peer review or declined from further consideration.

All research articles published in the journal undergo double-blind peer review conducted by experts in the relevant field.
The Editorial Board seeks to prevent any conflict of interest between authors and reviewers.
Reviewers treat submitted manuscripts as the intellectual property of the authors and as confidential material, guaranteeing the author’s right to non-disclosure of the content prior to publication.
In their conclusions, reviewers are free from any pressure or influence from the Editorial Board.

Using the similarity report generated by the automated plagiarism detection system StrikePlagiarism, which is provided together with the anonymized manuscript and the review form, the reviewer determines whether improper borrowings are absent, confirms that the text presents original research, and that all ideas, results, and texts of other authors are properly cited.

The reviewer evaluates the research and theoretical level of the article, its relevance and practical significance, the completeness of the research, the logic of the argumentation, the validity of the results, and the soundness of the conclusions. Based on this evaluation, the reviewer decides whether the manuscript meets the established requirements, requires revision, may be accepted for publication, or should be rejected.

If the reviewer recommends revisions, the Editorial Board returns the manuscript to the author for improvement and then considers it again. The author is given no more than two weeks from the date of notification to revise the manuscript. The author may disagree with certain reviewer recommendations and has the right to provide reasoned objections. The decision on further consideration of the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

In the case of a negative review, the author has the right to review the detailed reasoning provided by the reviewer and, if there are objective grounds, to appeal the decision. Re-review by another expert (arbitration review) is applied if the author can demonstrate a factual error or bias on the part of the reviewer.

The Editorial Board does not engage in substantive discussion of the manuscript with the author. The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board of the journal.

To avoid potential conflicts of interest, manuscripts submitted by members of the Editorial Board are handled with the full exclusion of the respective member from the decision-making process. When considering a manuscript submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, the process is managed by the Deputy Editor or, if necessary, by an invited guest editor. When considering a manuscript submitted by a member of the Editorial Board, the reviewer is assigned from among colleagues who have not co-authored publications or shared grants with the author within the last three years.

The overall timeline for the review process (initial screening – independent peer review – revision if necessary – final decision) is determined individually, depending on the scope and specifics of the submitted manuscript; however, the Editorial Board aims for the process not to exceed two months.

If the manuscript is returned for technical revision, the date of submission is considered to be the date of resubmission after revision.
The date of acceptance is the date on which the manuscript is approved after peer review.
The date of publication is the date on which the electronic version of the article is published on the journal’s website and assigned a DOI.

Retraction Procedure

Even with a thorough review of all submitted manuscripts, the Editorial Board acknowledges the possibility of an objective need to reconsider the status of an article after its publication. Guided by the principles and requirements outlined on the COPE website, the Editorial Board may initiate a retraction procedure.

The purpose of retraction is to correct published information and ensure the integrity of scholarly publications.

Retraction may be initiated by the authors, the journal’s Editorial Board, the institution where the authors are affiliated, or representatives of the academic community.

The decision to officially retract a published scientific article is made by the Editorial Board in cases of violations of publication ethics and/or other significant deficiencies (errors, plagiarism or improper borrowing of text, ideas, data, or research results; lack of proper references to primary data sources; duplicate publication of the same article in another outlet without proper justification; inclusion of authors who did not make a significant scholarly contribution or exclusion of those who did; detection of unethical peer review practices; a conflict of interest that could have influenced or did influence the research results, etc.), which make the reliable use of the article’s findings impossible.

The Editorial Board is obliged to inform the author about the retraction of the article and provide justification for the decision; indexing databases are also notified of the retraction.

If a retraction decision is made, the article is marked as “retracted” in all versions of the journal. A “Retraction Notice” is published on the website, containing bibliographic details and a link to the original article, a detailed justification of the reasons for retraction, and the date the decision comes into effect.

The retracted article remains in the journal archive with the appropriate marking.

Procedure for Handling Complaints Regarding Ethical Violations

This Procedure defines the process for submitting, reviewing, and making decisions on complaints concerning violations of publication ethics, academic integrity, and conflicts of interest. The main principles of consideration are objectivity, confidentiality, impartiality, and mandatory feedback.

A complaint must be submitted in written (electronic) form to the official editorial address, addressed to the Editor-in-Chief. The complaint must include the full name and contact details of the complainant (anonymous complaints are considered only if supported by substantial evidence), as well as a reference to the specific material (article or manuscript), with a detailed description of the alleged violation and supporting evidence (comparative tables, references to original sources, etc.).

The complaint review procedure includes:

• Preliminary review – within 10 working days, the Editor-in-Chief or Executive Secretary assesses the validity of the complaint;
• Formation of an Ethics Committee – if the complaint is deemed valid, a temporary committee (5 members) is established, which may include members of the Editorial Board and independent experts;
• Communication with the authors – the Editorial Board informs the authors about the complaint and provides them with an opportunity to submit explanations within 10 working days;
• Decision-making by the Ethics Committee – based on a thorough examination of all arguments, the committee issues one of the following conclusions: “no violation,” “minor violation (requiring correction),” or “serious violation.”

Depending on the severity of the violation, the editorial decision may include: rejection of the manuscript (if it has not yet been published); publication of official corrections to the article (issued as a separate document with its own DOI and linked to the original article); retraction of the article with the publication of an official notice on the website and in the next issue; notification of the management of the institution where the researcher is affiliated.

The editorial decision may be appealed within 30 days from the date of receiving the notification of the review results.