Reviewer's Guide

Peer Review Guidelines (download template)

1. Manuscripts are reviewed by independent experts — scholars or specialists in the relevant field of the submitted manuscript — who are not members of the editorial board (editorial council).
2. The decision on selecting a specific reviewer for the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief. The editor and the managing secretary, without disclosing author information, send the manuscript via the journal’s online submission system to two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject or a closely related field. Reviewers are invited specialists registered in the journal’s reviewer database.
3. The reviewer evaluates the submitted manuscript within a specified period through the OJS (Open Journal System). The maximum review period is two weeks.
4. All manuscripts undergo a mandatory double-blind peer review, in which both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other.
5. If the review contains comments indicating the need for revisions, the manuscript is returned to the author for revision. In such cases, the date of receipt is considered to be the date when the revised version is returned to the editorial office.
6. A manuscript returned for revision must be resubmitted in corrected form within two weeks. A letter from the authors must accompany the revised manuscript, providing responses to all reviewer comments and explaining all changes made to the manuscript.
7. If the author upon the recommendation of the reviewer has made substantial revisions, the manuscript is resubmitted to the same reviewer for re-evaluation.
8. The editorial board reserves the right to reject manuscripts if the author fails or refuses to address the reviewers’ and editors’ recommendations.
9. The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, by the editorial board as a whole.

All manuscripts submitted for publication undergo a closed (double-blind) peer review process.

The following types of manuscripts are not accepted for publication:

• Manuscripts that do not comply with the formatting requirements, whose authors refuse to make the necessary technical revisions;
• Manuscripts whose authors fail to address or provide reasoned rebuttals to reviewers’ comments;
• Manuscripts that fail the plagiarism check and demonstrate low originality scores;
• Manuscripts that lack scientific novelty, do not present scientific methodology, or do not include results based on source analysis.

Requirements for Peer Reviews of Scientific Articles

Manuscripts are evaluated using a 25-point scoring system (peer review form).

The review must provide a qualified analysis of the article’s content, an objective and well-reasoned assessment, and justified recommendations regarding its suitability for publication.

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on a standardized form and a range of criteria, including:

• Clarity and precision of the article’s title;
• Relevance and timeliness of the topic, its significance for the journal, and its potential interest to both specialists and a broader audience;
• Consistency of the article’s content with the journal’s scope and scientific standards;
• Scientific novelty of the problem and the originality of its solution;
• Practical value of the presented data, conclusions, and recommendations;
• Use of credible sources and scientific literature;
• Inclusion of empirical research results (including those conducted by the author);
• Scientific rigor in language and writing style;
• Appropriateness of the methods used and alignment of the research results with current scientific achievements;
• Overall length of the manuscript and its balance (text, visual materials, references);
• Relevance and necessity of illustrative materials, and their alignment with the topic;
• Presence of factual errors or any falsification;
• Compliance with the journal’s formatting requirements, including abstract and keywords preparation, and reference formatting.

Reviewer Comments and Recommendations

Reviewer comments and suggestions must be objective and constructive, aimed at improving the scientific quality of the manuscript.

The final section of the review must include one of the following conclusions:

1. "The article is recommended for publication in its current form"(23–25 points) — if the manuscript contains no significant issues and meets the criteria for relevance and originality of scientific research;
2. "The article is recommended for publication after correction of the deficiencies noted by the reviewer"(18–20 points) — in this case, the article is returned to the authors for revision. Once the revised manuscript is received, the editorial board resubmits it to the same reviewer. If the reviewer maintains substantial criticisms after revision, the editorial board will reject the manuscript with no option for further revision;
3. "The article is not recommended for publication"(12–14 points) — in this case, the article is either rejected by the editorial board or may be submitted for a second round of review. Only one re-review is allowed for a given article.

The date of manuscript submission is taken into account when determining the order of publication.

The average review period for a manuscript is 1 to 1.5 months.
Note: The editorial board reserves the right to reject a manuscript at any stage of the review process. The author will be notified of the decision through the journal’s online system (OJS).

Confidentiality

Materials submitted for review and unpublished data may not be used by reviewers in their personal research without the written consent of the author(s). The results of the peer review process are confidential. Reviewers are not allowed to review an article if there is a conflict of interest.