PROCEDURE FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES

1. Type of Review
The journal uses a double-blind peer review process:

• the author(s) do not know who the reviewer(s) are;
• the reviewer(s) do not receive information that identifies the authors, their institution, or funding sources (where possible at the review stage).

At the discretion of the editorial board, in exceptional cases an additional third review may be conducted if the initial reviews are contradictory or if ethical or methodological concerns arise.

2. Stages of Manuscript Consideration

• 1. Initial technical check by the editorial office (completeness, compliance with requirements, formatting, presence of metadata, ORCID, abstracts, keywords, references).
• 2. Plagiarism check (originality screening).
• 3. Editorial screening (scope alignment, scientific novelty, logic, structure, potential conflicts of interest).
• 4. Assignment of reviewers and peer review process.
• 5. Editorial decision based on reviews.
• 6. Author revision (if required) and re-evaluation.
• 7. Final editing and preparation for publication.

3. Criteria for Selecting Reviewers
Reviewer(s) are appointed by the editorial board based on the following criteria:

• subject-matter expertise relevant to the manuscript (recent publications, research experience);
• academic degree/title or a proven scientific record in the relevant field;
• adherence to publication ethics and willingness to maintain confidentiality;
• absence of conflicts of interest (co-authorship with the author within the past 2 years, joint projects/grants, affiliation with the same department/institution, personal or professional relationships, etc.);
• independence: where possible, reviewers are selected from different institutions; international experts may be involved.

A reviewer has the right to decline the review due to lack of time or a conflict of interest.

4. Review Timeline

• Standard review period: up to 14 calendar days from receipt of the manuscript.
• If additional expertise is required, the period may be extended to 21 days.
• Author revision period: 7–14 days (depending on the extent of comments).
• Re-evaluation after revision: up to 7–14 days.

5. Review Format and Documentation

5.1. Mandatory Evaluation Criteria

• relevance of the topic and alignment with the journal’s scope;
• scientific novelty and practical/theoretical significance;
• correctness of methodology, data, and analytical tools;
• logical structure and clarity of presentation;
• validity of conclusions and recommendations;
• adequacy of bibliography and correctness of references;
• compliance with academic integrity and ethical standards.

5.2. Documentation Format

• the review is stored electronically (in the journal system or as a file signed by the reviewer or identified by a reviewer code);
• the journal maintains a register of reviews (submission date, review assignment date, review receipt date, decision, revision stages);
• reviews are stored for at least 1 year.

6. Editorial Decisions Based on Peer Review
Based on the reviews, the editorial board makes one of the following decisions:

• 1. Accept without changes.
• 2. Accept with minor revisions.
• 3. Request major revisions with resubmission and re-review (revise & resubmit).
• 4. Reject (with justification).

The editorial office sends the author(s) a consolidated decision along with reviewer comments. If necessary, comments may be merged into a single document while preserving their content and logic.

7. Final Decision and Resolution of Disagreements

• The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or editorial board, taking into account the reviews and the journal’s policies.
• If reviews are substantially conflicting, a third independent reviewer may be appointed, or an additional expert evaluation may be conducted by a member of the editorial board without a conflict of interest.

8. Confidentiality and Ethics

• All manuscript materials and reviews are confidential.
• Reviewers must not use ideas or data from the manuscript prior to its publication.
• Any ethical violations (plagiarism, data fabrication, citation manipulation, etc.) are handled according to the journal’s procedures for addressing complaints and breaches of academic integrity.