Reviewing Process

Manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process: neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. Submitted manuscripts are reviewed by at least one, but usually two external experts in the relevant field.

If both referee reports are positive, the article is recommended for publication. If both reports are negative, the article is rejected. In cases where the reviews are conflicting (i.e., one positive and one negative), the editorial board sends the article to a third reviewer for an additional opinion.

Editors reserve the right to conditionally accept an article that does not fully meet certain requirements, provided that the author makes the necessary revisions. The final decision on acceptance or rejection is made by the editorial team.

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 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.