Peer Review Process

Internal Review (Preliminary Editorial Assessment)

All manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Office are initially evaluated by the Executive Editor in terms of overall formatting, thematic relevance, and compliance with the journal's editorial policy. Manuscripts that do not correspond to the journal's scope, editorial policy, or standards are rejected without external review.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's structural and formatting requirements are returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. If the author does not respond to the editor's request within 30 calendar days, the manuscript is considered withdrawn from the review process.

Manuscripts with a significant level of text similarity detected through plagiarism-checking systems such as StrikePlagiarism or iThenticate are returned to the authors for revision. In cases where plagiarism is identified, the manuscript is rejected without the right of resubmission.

After completing all internal checks, the manuscript is forwarded for external peer review.

External Review (Evaluation by Independent Experts)

All submitted manuscripts undergo double-blind peer review by external reviewers who are experts in the relevant scientific field.

Members of the Editorial Board recommend reviewers who have expertise and publications related to the manuscript's topic. Editorial Board members may also serve as reviewers.

Reviewers are expected to follow international best practices in peer review, including the Recommendations for Reviewers by the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) or the Web of Science Academy.

Reviewers should promptly inform the editor of any potential conflicts of interest. They must also adhere to strict confidentiality, including not sharing, reproducing, or using manuscript content in any form, and not disclosing information about the review request.

Review Criteria

During the review process, reviewers evaluate the manuscript by answering the following questions:

Does the title correspond to the content and purpose of the article?

Does the abstract reflect the main content and follow the IMRAD structure?

Are the key ideas original, scientifically significant, and of interest to readers?

Are the main results scientifically sound and meaningful?

Does the manuscript comply with the IMRAD structure and technical requirements?

Are tables and figures justified, appropriate, and compliant with journal requirements?

Is the research methodology appropriate and well justified?

Is the language scientific, grammatically correct, and clear?

Does the discussion demonstrate knowledge of relevant literature?

Are the conclusions clear and well-argued?

If reviewers select "no, requires minor revision" or "no, requires major revision," they must provide justified comments and recommendations for improvement.

Editors reserve the right not to forward to authors any comments that are subjective, offensive, or do not meet the established criteria.

Editors act as intermediaries in all communications between authors and reviewers. If consensus cannot be reached, additional reviewers may be invited.

The Executive Editor may return a review for revision if it does not meet the required standards or contains ambiguous comments. In cases of serious issues, a reviewer may be excluded from the journal's reviewer pool.

Reviewers do not perform structural or language editing but may indicate the need for such revisions.

Editorial Decisions

Possible editorial decisions include:

accept;

accept with minor revisions;

accept with major revisions;

reject with resubmission recommended (after substantial revision and possibly additional research);

reject (without the right to resubmit the same manuscript).

If revisions are required, the manuscript is returned to the authors along with reviewers' comments and editorial recommendations.

Authors must resubmit the revised manuscript along with detailed responses to reviewers' comments, clearly indicating all changes in the text.

The Executive Editor evaluates the revised manuscript or may send it for a second round of review. In such cases, reviewers assess whether their previous comments have been adequately addressed.

Reviewers are expected to provide clear, reasoned, and constructive feedback.

The journal allows a maximum of two rounds of peer review.

The Editorial Board considers reviewers' comments; however, the final decision on publication is made at an editorial board meeting.

Author Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions. The procedure for appeals is described in the section "Complaints and Appeals" of the journal's Editorial Policy.