Review procedure

The journal applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the anonymity of both authors and reviewers is ensured to maintain objectivity and impartiality in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Selection of reviewers

Reviewers are selected by the editorial board from among qualified specialists with relevant academic expertise and experience in the subject area of the submitted manuscript. Preference is given to researchers who have publications in the relevant field and who have no conflict of interest with the authors. When necessary, external independent experts may be invited.

Review criteria

In the evaluation process, reviewers consider the originality and scientific novelty of the manuscript, its theoretical and practical relevance, methodological soundness, validity of conclusions, quality of sources used, and overall academic quality of the presentation.

Review timeline

The standard peer review period is 3–4 weeks from the date of the reviewer’s confirmation of acceptance. If revisions are required, the timeline may be extended depending on the extent and quality of the authors’ revisions.

Documentation of the process

All stages of the peer review process are recorded in the journal’s editorial system. Reviews are submitted in written form and stored in the editorial archive. If necessary, authors may receive anonymized reviewer comments without disclosure of reviewer identities.

Decision-making process

The final decision on a manuscript is made by the editorial board based on reviewers’ reports and recommendations. Possible decisions include acceptance, request for revisions, or rejection of the manuscript. The final decision always rests with the editorial board, taking into account the scientific quality of the work and the journal’s publication policy.