Review procedure

1. Submission and Preliminary Screening The scientific journal accepts manuscripts of a fundamental, methodological, and practice-oriented nature within the specified scientific scope. The Editorial Board supports the development of evidence-based pedagogy and encourages authors to submit materials containing experimental research results, mathematical calculations, and high-quality data visualization in the form of graphs, charts, and tables. A manuscript that does not meet the journal's scope or requirements may be rejected immediately by the scientific or technical editor during the preliminary screening stage.

 2. Anonymity and Transparency Standards The Editorial Board adheres to global standards for transparency in the expert evaluation process by practicing double-blind peer review. Under this policy, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. All personal data are removed from the article text and file properties prior to the evaluation.

 3. Stages of Expert Evaluation

• Manuscripts submitted to the journal are sent for review to at least two reviewers.
• Reviewers initially examine the article's abstract and then either agree or decline to conduct the review; in the event of a refusal, alternative experts are appointed.
• The peer review process typically takes up to 90 days.
• Experts evaluate the scientific level of the material, the foundational nature of theoretical propositions, practical significance, the validity of calculations, and the quality of the graphical presentation of results.
• Reviewers have the opportunity to upload files containing the corrected manuscript or additional materials to assist the author during revisions.

4. Editorial Decision-Making Upon completion of the review form, experts select one of the following recommendations:

• Publish without changes – the submission is ready for publication.
• Publish after minor revisions – the submission is accepted provided the author addresses specific recommendations.
• Publish after major revisions – the submission requires significant improvement and a revision of digital data or the theoretical framework.
• Reject submission – the material does not meet the journal's requirements.

Based on the reviewers' findings, the Editorial Board decides to accept the article, request revisions, initiate additional review, or reject the submission. The board may also recommend submitting the article to a different publication better suited to its specific subject matter.

5. Author Interaction and Appeals Following the review, all relevant information is sent to the author, who must refine the manuscript and upload the new version into the journal system. If the revised manuscript is not returned on time without notification of the delay, it is removed from the queue and deleted. Reviewers then re-evaluate the corrected material. In cases of disagreement with reviewer comments, the author has the right to appeal by providing a reasoned rebuttal. If reviewers provide conflicting resolutions, the Editorial Board may facilitate a joint discussion or appoint an independent expert to make the final decision.

 6. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria The primary criteria for evaluating a manuscript include:

• Consistency with the journal's scientific scope.
• Relevance and scientific novelty.
• The fundamental nature of theoretical substantiations and the practical value of results.
• The validity of conclusions based on the conducted calculations and experiments.
• The quality of data visualization (graphs, tables) and the degree to which the abstract reflects the content.