Peer review policy

PEER REVIEW POLICY

The journal follows a reliable, objective, and confidential peer review process in accordance with internationally recognized editorial standards and the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The aim of the review process is to ensure the highest quality of published research and to maintain scientific integrity.

1. Review Model

The journal follows a double-blind peer review model, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the entire review process. The editorial team makes every effort to effectively anonymize the identities of authors to reviewers and vice versa.
In justified cases – e.g., when a member of the editorial team is also the author – identifying data of participants in the process (both author and reviewer) may be concealed also from editorial board members involved in the decision-making process, including the handling editor or editor-in-chief, in the event of a potential conflict of interest.

2. Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript is assigned to two independent reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, and expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript.
For manuscripts submitted by authors affiliated with foreign institutions (or written in English), the editorial board strives to appoint at least one reviewer affiliated with a foreign institution.
In case of conflicting reviews (e.g., one positive and one negative), the editorial board may seek the opinion of a third reviewer. This opinion supports the editorial decision, but the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript rests with the editorial board.

3. Institutional Independence and Conflict of Interest Avoidance

  • A manuscript cannot be reviewed by a person employed in the same organizational unit (department, institute) as the manuscript’s author, the handling editor, the editor-in-chief, or any member of the editorial team with access to the manuscript or influence over editorial decisions.
  • Reviewers who have collaborated with the author in the last 3–5 years are excluded from reviewing, especially former co-authors of publications or participants in joint research projects, grants, or scientific consortia.
  • The editorial team also considers other potential conflicts of interest, including personal relationships (e.g., kinship, friendship, open conflict) and informal professional connections (e.g., shared membership in scientific councils, editorial committees, or expert panels).
  • Reviewers are required to submit a declaration of the absence of any conflict of interest that could affect the impartiality of their assessment.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • originality and significance of the topic,
  • scientific contribution to the field,
  • clarity and appropriateness of the research methodology,
  • coherence and accuracy of the argumentation,
  • linguistic, stylistic, and formal correctness.

5. Confidentiality, Use of AI, and Third-Party Involvement

All information related to the review process, including the content of the manuscript and the review itself, is strictly confidential and must not be used for personal purposes or disclosed to third parties without prior editorial approval.
Reviewers are required to prepare their reports independently and without assistance. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, automated systems, or third-party individuals not formally appointed by the editorial board to carry out the review is not permitted.
AI tools may only be used for technical assistance (e.g., language correction or formatting). If a reviewer uses such tools, this must be disclosed in the review.
Reviewers must not share the manuscript or any related information with third parties or solicit their help without explicit permission from the editorial office.

6. Timeliness of Reviews

Reviewers should submit their evaluations within the agreed timeframe to ensure the efficiency of the editorial process.
If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline or complete the review for any reason, they must promptly inform the editorial board so that an alternative reviewer can be appointed.

7. Review Outcome

Based on the manuscript evaluation, the reviewer may recommend one of the following:

  • acceptance without revisions,
  • acceptance after minor or major revisions,
  • rejection of the manuscript.

The final decision to accept or reject the manuscript is made by the editorial board, taking into account the reviewers' opinions, the overall quality of the manuscript, and its alignment with the journal's profile.