1. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo peer review and originality screening via the Antiplagiat system (with due regard for the specifics of each discipline), in order to ensure expert evaluation of submitted work.
2. Authors must submit manuscripts prepared in accordance with the “Manuscript Submission Guidelines” (Appendix 2). Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s subject scope or do not meet the formatting requirements will not be considered.
2.1. Authors of manuscripts that do not meet these requirements will be notified of the decision along with the reasons for rejection.
2.2. Manuscripts that satisfy these requirements are forwarded for peer review to the editorial board members responsible for the relevant subject area.
2.3. All reviewers are recognized experts in the subject area of the manuscript under review and must have published work in that area within the preceding three years.
3. Reviewers are informed that manuscripts transmitted to them are the intellectual property of the authors and constitute confidential material. Reviewers are not permitted to copy manuscripts for their own use.
4. The journal operates a strict confidentiality policy and follows a double-blind anonymous peer review process. All communication between authors and reviewers is conducted exclusively through the Editorial Board.
5. The editorial office sends authors either a copy of the review or a reasoned rejection.
6. Reviews are provided to authors without the reviewer’s signature, name, position, or institutional affiliation.
7. Reviews are retained by the editorial office for a period of three years.
8. The review must include an evaluative analysis of:
- the relevance of the topic and the approaches taken to address it;
- the most significant aspects of the article and its theoretical and/or practical value;
- the soundness of the conclusions drawn by the author(s);
- the correctness of any mathematical or quantitative methods used;
- the clarity and accessibility of the author’s writing style;
- the completeness and proper formatting of the reference list.
The concluding section of the review must include one of the following recommendations:
- accept the manuscript for publication;
- accept the manuscript for publication subject to minor revisions, without requiring re-review;
- invite the author to revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comments, with subsequent re-review;
- reject the manuscript.
9. A revised manuscript must be resubmitted for review together with the original version as promptly as possible. A manuscript delayed for more than three months, or one requiring revision, will be treated as a new submission. Manuscripts rejected following peer review will not be reconsidered.
10. The final decision to publish an article in a given issue rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
11. The Editorial Board notifies the author of the decision reached.
12. If an author disagrees with the reviewer’s assessment, they have the right to submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office requesting that the manuscript be sent to a different reviewer. In such cases, the journal will either arrange for re-review or provide the author with a reasoned rejection.
13. Review timelines are determined on a case-by-case basis with a view to ensuring timely publication, but may not exceed six months from the date of submission. This period may be extended where additional review is required or where a qualified reviewer in the relevant field is temporarily unavailable.
14. No fees are charged to authors for the peer review of manuscripts. 15. The Editorial Board reserves the right to abridge and copyedit manuscripts prior to publication.