Selecting peer-reviewers

1. General Provisions

The Journal applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, objectivity, and impartiality of manuscript evaluation.

Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance to the Journal’s scope.

2. Selection of Reviewers

External peer reviewers are selected from independent scholars who:

  • have publications relevant to the subject of the manuscript;
  • possess appropriate academic expertise;
  • maintain verified academic profiles (Publons, ORCID, Scopus, or Google Scholar).

Priority in reviewer selection:

  1. Researchers with active Publons / Web of Science Reviewer Recognition profiles;
  2. Reviewers who have previously collaborated with the Journal;
  3. Scholars who have expressed interest in reviewing via the Journal’s Publons page (“Interested in reviewing for this journal?”).

The Editorial Board reserves the right to appoint additional reviewers where necessary.

3. Peer Review Procedure

  1. Each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening (desk review).
  2. Manuscripts that meet the Journal’s requirements are sent to at least two independent reviewers.
  3. Reviewers receive:
    • an anonymized manuscript;
    • a standard review form;
    • reviewer guidelines.
  4. The standard review period is 2–4 weeks.

4. Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewers’ reports, the Editorial Board may decide to:

  • accept the manuscript without revisions;
  • accept with minor revisions;
  • request major revisions;
  • reject the manuscript.

In case of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be appointed.

5. Ethical Principles

All reviewers are required to:

  • adhere to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE);
  • maintain confidentiality of the manuscript;
  • provide objective and unbiased evaluations;
  • refrain from using unpublished materials for personal advantage;
  • declare any conflicts of interest and decline the review if such conflicts exist.

6. Confidentiality

  • The identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed (double-blind review).
  • Manuscripts must not be shared with third parties without editorial permission.

7. Transparency and Integrity

The Editorial Board ensures that:

  • editorial decisions are independent of financial or institutional influence;
  • the peer review process remains impartial;
  • academic integrity standards are strictly upheld.

8. Misconduct Handling

In cases of:

  • plagiarism;
  • data fabrication or falsification;
  • ethical violations

the Journal follows COPE guidelines and best practices.