Preliminary Review. Upon receipt of a manuscript by the editorial office, an initial screening is conducted to verify compliance with the journal’s formal requirements. This includes assessing the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope, its structure and formatting, the quality of the abstract, the correctness of references, language accuracy, and adherence to academic writing style. A mandatory plagiarism check is also performed. If the manuscript does not meet the requirements, it may be rejected or returned to the author for revision. The date of resubmission is considered the date on which the revised version is received.
Peer Review. The purpose of peer review is to ensure the scientific quality of publications through expert evaluation of submitted manuscripts. The journal applies a double-blind peer review process, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts.
Reviewers act in accordance with the ethical principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics, ensuring objectivity and impartiality in the evaluation process. Only manuscripts that meet the journal’s requirements and have successfully passed the initial screening are accepted for peer review. After this stage, the manuscript is forwarded to the responsible secretary, who removes all author-identifying information to ensure anonymity.
Requirements for Reviewers. Both national and international scholars are invited to act as reviewers, provided they have relevant publications in the subject area of the manuscript. In particular, they should have at least one publication within the last three years in peer-reviewed professional journals or journals indexed in Scopus or Web of Science, or possess monographs or book chapters published by international academic publishers. Reviewers are selected by the editorial board based on their expertise, current workload, and with their consent.
Content of the Review. The reviewer evaluates the manuscript according to the following criteria: correspondence between the title and content, relevance of the topic, level of source analysis, research methodology, completeness of topic coverage, validity of conclusions, adherence to ethical standards, accuracy of citations, presence of references to relevant studies, and the author’s individual contribution to addressing the research problem.
The reviewer provides one of the following recommendations: accept the manuscript for publication; return it for revision with subsequent re-review; or reject it. In the case of a negative decision, a substantiated justification must be provided.
Reviews are submitted to the editorial office, as a rule, within two weeks and are prepared in the established format, with a signature (including an electronic signature).
Consideration by the Editorial Board. After receiving the reviews, the manuscript is submitted to a meeting of the editorial board, which is held periodically (usually on a monthly basis). Based on the reviewers’ reports, and through discussion and voting, one of the following decisions is made:
Further Procedure. If revision is required, the author receives the review with recommendations (without disclosure of the reviewer’s identity). The revised manuscript is then resubmitted for peer review. In the case of a repeated negative evaluation, the article is finally rejected.
The editorial office does not engage in discussions regarding rejected manuscripts. All reviews are stored in the journal’s archive for at least three years after the publication of the respective issue.