All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a double-blind peer review process (authors do not know the identities of the reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identities of the authors), which ensures objectivity, promotes impartiality, and complies with international standards of academic integrity.

Prior to peer review, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment, during which its relevance to the journal’s scope, compliance with formatting requirements, and adherence to academic integrity principles are evaluated. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without being sent for peer review.

Each manuscript that passes the initial screening is sent to at least two independent reviewers.

Reviewers are selected based on the following criteria: scientific expertise and subject relevance, academic degree, publication record, absence of conflicts of interest, absence of co-authorship with the authors, professional reputation and ethical standards, ability to provide constructive feedback, h-index, compliance with COPE principles, and the presence of a profile in Web of Science (ResearcherID) or ORCID. Reviewers must be recognized experts in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewing is conducted on a voluntary and unpaid basis.

Before starting the review, the reviewer must confirm the absence of any conflict of interest. If a conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer must immediately inform the editorial office and decline to participate in the review process.

The peer review period typically ranges from 2 to 6 weeks.

Form of documenting the peer review:
Article title: ___________________________________________
Date of peer review: _________________________________

Main assessment criteria

1. Significance of the topic
[ ] High
[ ] Medium
[ ] Low

2. Scientific novelty
[ ] Extreme
[ ] Severe
[ ] Absent

3. Methodology and argumentation
[ ] Complies with standards
[ ] Needs clarification
[ ] Has defects

4. Design quality
[ ] High
[ ] Needs editing
[ ] Unsatisfactory

General recommendation

[ ] Accept without changes
[ ] Accept after minor revisions
[ ] Return for revision
[ ] Reject

Commentary by reviewer (brief): ______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reviewer's signature: __________________________

The form is integrated into the electronic article submission system (OJS, Editorial Manager).

Editorial decision

The final decision on the publication of a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on:

• the recommendations of independent reviewers;
• the assessment of the scientific novelty and significance of the results;
• the relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope;
• the quality of the structure and presentation of the material.

If necessary, the manuscript may be returned to the author for revision. After revisions are made, the manuscript may be submitted for additional or repeated peer review.

Manuscripts rejected as a result of peer review are not reconsidered, except in cases of substantial revision and resubmission as a new manuscript.

The editorial board ensures compliance with the principles of academic integrity. In case of violations, appropriate actions are taken, ranging from a request for revision to rejection or retraction of the article.

Appeals

Authors have the right to submit an appeal if they disagree with the results of the peer review. The appeal must be submitted in writing and include reasoned responses to the reviewers’ comments.

Appeal materials are considered by the editorial office and, if necessary, may be sent for additional or repeated review. The final decision on the appeal is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board.