Reviewing Process

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed.

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers based on criteria such as scientific quality, originality, relevance, and alignment with the journal’s scope. Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editorial team may decide to accept the manuscript, request revisions (with possible re-evaluation), or reject the submission.

In cases of significant disagreement between reviewers or when additional evaluation is required, the journal may seek an additional (third) independent review.

Authors may be asked to revise their manuscripts in order to address reviewers’ comments and to meet the journal’s requirements. Acceptance for publication is granted only after the authors have adequately addressed all substantive comments.

The final decision on publication is made by the editorial team based on the peer review reports and in accordance with the journal’s editorial policies.

In the event of rejection, authors are provided with a reasoned decision, including reviewers’ comments (excluding any information that could identify the reviewers) and editorial feedback.

If the article is rejected, the author has access to the reviewers' comments and editorial recommendations.

• The average time for initial manuscript evaluation: 30 days.
• The average time for peer review: 60 days.
• The average time from submission to publication: 150 days

For each manuscript, the journal maintains information on:

• date of submission
• date of first decision
• date of acceptance

In cases of conflict of interest, reviewers are replaced to ensure unbiased evaluation.

The journal follows COPE and international peer review standards.

For Reviewers

Peer Review Guidelines

The primary responsibility of a peer reviewer is to evaluate submitted manuscripts and make a recommendation regarding their suitability for publication. Through the Editor-in-Chief, the reviewer may also provide authors with constructive suggestions to improve their work.

• Reviewers communicate exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief or Executive Secretaries.
• A reviewer must be a highly qualified specialist in the relevant academic field.
• Each submitted manuscript is considered confidential and is only sent to reviewers selected by the Editor-in-Chief or Executive Secretaries after appropriate consultation.
• Reviewers must remain objective and should inform the editorial team if they notice any substantial similarities between the manuscript and other works they are familiar with.
• Acceptance or rejection of a manuscript should be based on clear, evidence-based arguments, and reviewers should avoid any personal criticism.