PEER REVIEW POLICY
This policy defines the ethical and professional requirements for the journal’s reviewers.
By agreeing to review a manuscript, the reviewer undertakes to: evaluate the article solely on the basis of its scientific content, methodology, and academic value; provide objective, reasoned, comprehensive, and timely assessments; avoid personal bias and any considerations unrelated to the scholarly quality of the manuscript; disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest and decline the review in such cases; formulate comments in a respectful, professional, and constructive manner; maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and all related materials; uphold academic integrity and high ethical standards in interactions with the editorial office, authors, and other reviewers.
PEER REVIEW PROCESS.
The journal applies a double-blind review process, whereby the reviewer is unaware of the author’s identity and the author does not know who conducts the review. This approach facilitates the detection of duplicate, redundant, and fragmented publications, authorship violations, plagiarism and self-plagiarism, and enables a more accurate assessment of the scientific context of the submitted research.
ARTICLE EVALUATION CRITERIA.
To ensure transparency and objectivity in the review process, the journal employs clearly defined evaluation criteria. These encompass both technical and substantive aspects of the manuscript: the article title, abstract, keywords, text structure, methodology, results, conclusions, bibliographic formatting, scientific novelty, relevance, practical significance, reproducibility of the study, as well as language and style.
SUBMISSION PROCESS.
When submitting an article via email, the author includes all required metadata within the manuscript. The editor verifies their completeness, accuracy, and compliance with the journal’s requirements. As the submitted information is used not only in the editorial process but is also published alongside the article, authors should complete it with particular care. Any identified errors may be corrected; however, this may delay the manuscript’s progress through the editorial process.
EDITOR’S REPORT: EVALUATION AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT.
At the initial stage, a technical screening of the manuscript is conducted. This includes verifying the compliance of the title, list of authors, abstract, keywords, author information, article structure, and reference list with the journal’s requirements. This assessment does not address the scientific quality of the work; rather, it is intended to determine the manuscript’s readiness for subsequent scholarly peer review.
In cases of non-compliance with formal requirements, submitted manuscripts may be returned to the authors for revision in order to bring them into conformity with the journal’s standards.
The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject a manuscript without sending it for peer review if it does not correspond to the journal’s scope or fails to meet its scientific criteria. The technical editor (in the case of a complex research subject, in agreement with the Editor-in-Chief) assigns at least two independent reviewers to each manuscript—experts in the relevant field of knowledge. At least one reviewer must be external, while the other may be a member of the Editorial Board. Reviewers must:
- hold an academic degree and/or have proven research experience in the subject area of the manuscript;
- have relevant scholarly publications on the topic in recent years;
- have no conflict of interest with the authors of the manuscript;
- be independent of the authors’ institution (where possible).
Where necessary, in order to enhance the quality of expert evaluation or in cases of potential conflicts of interest, the Editorial Board may engage additional external independent experts who possess appropriate qualifications and experience and adhere to the journal’s editorial and ethical policies.
The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board on the basis of the reviewers’ reports.
In cases where the author is a member of the Editorial Board or the Editor-in-Chief, both reviewers must be external, and the decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board under the chairmanship of the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.
The external peer review process typically takes 2–3 weeks.
REVIEWER’S REPORT.
Scholarly peer review involves evaluating the substantive quality of the article according to the following criteria:
1. Article Title.
Alignment with focus and target audience: the title clearly defines the subject of the study, is understandable to the academic community, and is relevant to the intended readership.
Content relevance: the title adequately reflects the main idea, issues, and content of the article without distorting its meaning.
Conciseness and precision: the title is formulated succinctly and informatively, avoiding redundancy and overly complex constructions, which facilitates comprehension and memorability.
2. Authorship Identification.
Compliance with publication ethics: the number of authors does not raise concerns regarding possible “guest” or “gift” authorship and is consistent with the scope of the submitted research.
Proportionality of contribution: the number of authors corresponds to the complexity and scale of the study and may indicate a substantial contribution from each.
3. Abstract.
Independence and completeness: the abstract is self-contained, informative, and reflects the purpose, methods, results, and other key characteristics of the study in accordance with the journal’s requirements.
Clarity of terminology: the abstract does not contain unexplained abbreviations, acronyms, or terms not clarified in the article.
Integrity of presentation: the abstract contains no references to other sources or documents and allows for a comprehensive understanding of the study without consulting the full text.
4. Keywords.
Content relevance: keywords accurately reflect the subject matter of the study and facilitate its proper classification in scientometric and bibliographic databases.
Search efficiency: the selected keywords enhance the visibility of the article and facilitate its retrieval by the target audience.
5. Relevance of the Study.
Topicality: the study addresses current issues in the field, supported by the use of up-to-date sources.
Significance of the topic: the subject aligns with contemporary trends and challenges in the field and has scholarly or practical importance.
Clarity of aim and objectives: the aim and objectives are clearly formulated and aligned with relevant issues in the field.
Scientific impact: the results may contribute to the advancement of scientific approaches, knowledge, or methods.
Societal relevance: the study addresses issues important for the professional community, public discourse, or policymaking.
6. Practical Significance of Results.
Applied value: the research findings have the potential for practical application and may be useful for improving approaches, processes, or decisions.
Feasibility of implementation: the article provides specific recommendations, proposals, or solutions suitable for practical use.
Impact on practice: the results may contribute to increased efficiency, quality, or productivity in the relevant field.
7. Scientific Novelty of Results.
Originality: the study contains new scientific propositions, approaches, or results that have not been adequately addressed previously.
Innovation: the article proposes new theoretical or applied solutions capable of expanding existing knowledge in the field.
Prospects: the results open opportunities for further research or practical application.
Distinction from prior work: the study demonstrates its difference from previously published works through a new approach, method, or interpretation.
8. Research Methodology.
Clarity of description: the research methods are presented clearly and coherently.
Alignment with the aim: the selected methods are appropriate for the stated objectives and ensure the attainment of the scientific result.
Adaptability: the methodological approaches described can be used in similar or new research contexts.
Sufficient level of detail: the methodology is presented in enough detail to understand the logic behind obtaining the results.
9. Reproducibility of the Study.
Completeness of description: the methodological framework is presented in sufficient detail to allow replication of the study under similar conditions.
Availability of data: sufficient data are provided for re-analysis or use by other researchers.
Transparency of procedures: the stages of data collection, processing, and analysis are described openly and clearly.
Comprehensiveness: all key elements necessary for replication or adaptation of the study are presented.
10. Discussion and Results.
Clarity of presentation: the results and their interpretation are presented clearly and logically
Consistency with the aim and objectives: the reported results are directly linked to the stated aim and formulated tasks.
Scientific context: the results are compared with other studies, allowing their significance to be assessed.
Consideration of limitations: the article specifies the research limitations that may affect the conclusions obtained
11. Conclusions.
Logical generalisation: the conclusions summarise the main results and follow logically from the material presented.
Consistency with the research aim: the conclusions are aligned with the aim and objectives defined at the beginning of the article.
Practical and forward‑looking recommendations: suggestions are provided regarding the practical application of the results and potential directions for further research
12. Language and writing style.
Clarity of presentation: the text is written clearly, coherently and in an accessible manner. Conformity to academic style: terminology and linguistic constructions conform to academic style and the professional language of the field.
Linguistic accuracy: the text contains no significant spelling, grammatical or stylistic errors.