Type of Peer Review
The Journal applies a double-blind peer review process:
- Reviewers do not have access to the identities of the author(s);
- Authors do not have access to the identities of the reviewers.
Criteria for Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected according to the following criteria:
- Possession of a PhD or Doctor of Sciences degree;
- Research publications relevant to the subject area of the submitted manuscript;
- Publications in journals indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science;
- Absence of any conflict of interest with the author(s);
- No more than one reviewer may be affiliated with the author's institution;
- Involvement of international reviewers whenever possible;
- Reviewers must not have co-authored publications with any of the manuscript's authors during the previous three years.
Peer Review Process
Stage 1. Initial Editorial Screening (up to 7 days)
The Editorial Office conducts:
- Verification of the manuscript's relevance to the Journal's scope;
- Plagiarism screening using StrikePlagiarism, iThenticate, Unicheck, or equivalent software;
- Verification of compliance with the Journal's formatting and submission requirements.
Editorial decision:
- Proceed to peer review; or
- Reject the manuscript without external review.
Stage 2. Reviewer Assignment (2–3 days)
- Selection of two independent reviewers;
- Invitation of reviewers to participate in the review process;
- Provision of an anonymized version of the manuscript to reviewers.
Stage 3. Peer Review (2–4 weeks)
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:
- Relevance and significance of the research topic;
- Scientific novelty;
- Consistency between the title and the content of the manuscript;
- Quality and adequacy of the literature review;
- Soundness of the research methodology;
- Reliability and validity of the results;
- Justification of the conclusions;
- Quality of presentation, structure, and language.
Stage 4. Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editorial Board may make one of the following decisions:
- Accept;
- Accept with minor revisions (no additional peer review required);
- Accept with major revisions (subject to a second round of peer review);
- Reject and resubmit;
- Reject.
In the event of substantially conflicting reviewer recommendations, a third reviewer may be appointed or the final decision may be made by the Editorial Board.
Stage 5. Author Revision (up to 2 weeks)
- Authors receive anonymous reviewer reports;
- Authors prepare a revised version of the manuscript;
- Authors submit a detailed point-by-point response to all reviewer comments.
Stage 6. Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on the reviewers' recommendations, the revised manuscript, and the authors' responses to reviewer comments.
Documentation and Record Keeping
- Reviewer reports are prepared using the Journal's standard review form;
- All review reports are archived by the Editorial Office for a minimum period of three years;
- Reviewer reports may be provided upon request to the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine or other authorized bodies in accordance with applicable regulations.
Review Timeline
- Estimated time from submission to the first final editorial decision: 6–8 weeks;
- Author revision period: 14 days;
- Re-review period (where applicable): 10–14 days.
Appeals
Authors have the right to appeal a rejection decision within 10 days of notification. Appeals are considered by an independent member of the Editorial Board who was not involved in the original decision-making process.
Post-Acceptance Editorial Processing
After a manuscript has been accepted for publication, it undergoes:
- literary and language editing;
- editing and proofreading of the English-language abstract;
- author review and implementation of final corrections.
The Editorial Office reserves the right to discontinue further processing of an accepted manuscript if the copyeditor determines that the requested editorial revisions have not been adequately implemented or if the author introduces substantial changes to the manuscript that were not evaluated during the peer-review process.