Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous peer review process designed to ensure academic quality, originality, relevance, and integrity. The journal applies a double-blind peer review model, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the evaluation process.

Before being sent to external reviewers, all submissions are subject to an initial editorial screening. At this stage, the editorial office evaluates whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope, complies with submission guidelines, and meets basic quality and ethical standards. Manuscripts that are incomplete or do not meet formal requirements may be returned to the authors for correction prior to peer review.

Plagiarism and originality checks are conducted for all submissions using appropriate plagiarism detection software as part of the editorial assessment.

Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal operates a double-blind peer review system. Reviewers do not have access to the authors’ identities, and authors are not informed of reviewer identities. Authors may suggest potential reviewers or request the exclusion of specific reviewers at the time of submission; however, the final selection of reviewers remains at the sole discretion of the editors.

Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to an editor and sent for evaluation to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Where appropriate, additional reviewers with methodological or statistical expertise may be consulted.

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript’s scientific quality, originality, clarity, methodological soundness, relevance to the field, and adequacy of references and citations. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, well-justified comments and recommendations aimed at improving the manuscript.

The standard duration of the peer review process is approximately six to ten weeks. Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluations within the agreed timeframe. If additional time is required, reviewers are expected to notify the editorial office promptly so that authors can be informed and alternative arrangements may be made if necessary.

Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are based on a careful assessment of the reviewers’ reports and the editors’ own evaluation of the manuscript. Decisions are not determined by a simple numerical ranking or majority vote, but by the strength and relevance of the arguments presented by the reviewers, as well as the journal’s editorial priorities.

Possible editorial decisions include:

Accept Submission – the manuscript is accepted without revisions.
Minor Revisions – the manuscript is accepted subject to minor changes.
Major Revisions / Resubmit for Review – substantial revisions are required, and the revised manuscript may be sent for a further round of peer review.
Decline Submission – the manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief, often in consultation with the editorial board, taking into account the reviewers’ comments and the overall editorial assessment.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, confidentially, and professionally. Reviews should focus on the scholarly merits of the work and avoid personal criticism. Reviewers must assess the clarity of the arguments, the validity of the methods and results, and the appropriateness of citations and references.

All information contained in manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, use, or disclose manuscript content for any purpose outside the review process.

Editing of Reviewers’ Reports

Reviewer reports are generally transmitted to authors in full. In rare cases, the editorial office may edit reports to remove offensive language or material that breaches confidentiality. Reviewers are encouraged to express their opinions clearly and respectfully, providing reasoned arguments to support their assessments.

Appeals

Authors who believe that their manuscript has been rejected due to a misunderstanding or procedural error may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office. Appeals are considered carefully; however, authors should note that editorial decisions are rarely overturned unless compelling evidence is provided.

Timeliness and Transparency

The journal is committed to maintaining an efficient and transparent peer review process. Authors may monitor the status of their manuscript through the online submission system. Every effort is made to communicate decisions and requests for revision in a timely manner, while ensuring that the quality and integrity of the review process are not compromised.