Peer Review Policy and Ethical Requirements for Reviewers

1. General Provisions

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are subject to a mandatory double-blind peer-review process, under which neither the authors are aware of the reviewers’ identities nor the reviewers have access to any information that could identify the authors.

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers, selected in accordance with the scientific scope and thematic focus of the article. In the event of significant divergence in the reviewers’ assessments, a third independent reviewer may be invited, whose evaluation is taken into consideration by the editorial board when making the final publication decision.

The editorial board of the journal strictly adheres to the recommendations of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) in order to ensure the scientific quality, impartiality, and ethical integrity of the peer-review process.

2. Confidentiality and Artificial Intelligence (AI) Restrictions

To safeguard authors’ intellectual property and maintain transparency, the following regulations apply:

  • Non-Disclosure: It is strictly prohibited to disclose any information, data, or ideas presented in the manuscripts prior to their official online publication.

  • Prohibition of GAI Uploads: Reviewers and editors are forbidden from uploading unpublished manuscripts or respondents’ personal data into Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) systems (e.g., ChatGPT). This is a critical measure to prevent breaches of editorial confidentiality.

  • Intellectual Endeavor: Peer review is recognized exclusively as a personal intellectual task of the expert. The use of AI to analyze manuscripts or generate feedback is strictly prohibited due to risks associated with confidentiality violations, algorithmic bias, and the potential generation of fabricated citations (hallucinations).

  • Disclosure of Automated Tools: Any routine use of automated tools by the editorial office (e.g., technical screening or plagiarism detection) must be formally declared and accompanied by human oversight.

3. Reviewer Selection and Eligibility Criteria

Reviewers are appointed by the Editor‑in‑Chief based on the following criteria:

  • Expertise: Demonstrated subject‑matter expertise and the required language proficiency, as well as a record of scholarly publications in the relevant field, including publications in journals indexed in Scopus or Web of Science.

  • Absence of Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the author(s) nor have co-authored publications with them within the last 3 years.

4. Editorial Workflow and Timelines

The review process is synchronized with the overall editorial cycle:

  • Initial Screening: Up to 10 business days (includes technical verification, plagiarism check, and reviewer assignment).

  • First Review Round: Up to 90 calendar days.

  • Follow-up Round (Post-revision): Up to 45–60 calendar days.

  • Author Revisions: Up to 30 calendar days.

  • Communication: Should any stage exceed the estimated timeframe by 15+ days, the Editorial Board will notify the authors and provide an updated provisional deadline.

5. Editorial Decision

The peer‑review workflow of the journal is organized according to the following algorithm:

  1. Appointment of Reviewers: The Managing Editor selects two reviewers from the journal’s database whose scholarly profiles and language competencies correspond to the subject matter and the language of the manuscript, and sends them an invitation to review the manuscript.
  2. Acceptance of the Review Request: Within 7 calendar days of receiving the request from the Managing Editor, the reviewer must either confirm their consent to conduct the review or submit a reasoned refusal (due to a conflict of interest or lack of availability) directly through the journal’s system.
  3. Expert Evaluation: Upon accepting the invitation, the reviewer is granted access to the anonymized version of the manuscript. The evaluation is conducted by completing a standardized review form and, where necessary, uploading a file containing annotated comments or suggested revisions to the submission.
  4. Appointment of an Additional Reviewer: In the event of discrepancies between the decisions of the two reviewers, the Managing Editor shall appoint a third reviewer.
  5. Editorial Decision: After receiving all reviewers’ reports, the Editor analyzes them and makes an editorial decision. The author receives an automated notification from the journal containing the reviewers’ comments.
  6. Author–Editor Interaction: If revisions are required, the author uploads a revised version of the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments via the journal’s submission system. In the case of substantial revisions, the revised manuscript is subsequently forwarded for a second round of peer review to the same reviewer(s).
  7. Archiving and Documentation: All actions, correspondence, and versions of the manuscript are securely stored within the journal system as an audit trail, serving as documented evidence of compliance with ethical standards and procedural transparency.

6. Evaluation Procedure and Review Structure

Reviewers utilize a standardized evaluation form to assess the manuscript according to the following primary parameters:

  1. Scope and Technical Compliance: Relevance to the journal’s profile, title accuracy, abstract quality, and adherence to structural requirements.

  2. Scientific Novelty and Relevance: The originality of the research and its practical or theoretical significance.

  3. Methodological Rigor: The validity of the chosen methods and the logical consistency of the scientific argumentation.

  4. Validity of Results and Conclusions: Whether the findings are sufficiently supported by data and aligned with the research objectives; quality of visual materials (tables/figures).

  5. Quality of Sources and Stylistic Standards: Relevance of the bibliography and adherence to academic linguistic norms.

  6. Final Recommendation: A definitive decision (Accept, Revise, or Reject) accompanied by constructive feedback.

7. Reviewer Recommendations

Based on the analysis, the reviewer must select one of the following options:

  • Recommend for publication

  • Recommend for publication subject to minor revisions

  • Recommend substantial revision followed by a second round of peer review

  • Do not recommend for publication

8. Quality Control and Sanctions

The Editorial Board maintains rigorous quality control over the review process and reserves the right to:

  • Reject superficial or insufficiently argued reviews.

  • Request supplementary data or code from authors to verify research findings.

  • Sanctions: In cases of unethical conduct (e.g., unauthorized use of AI for reviewing, data disclosure, or demonstrable bias), the reviewer will be immediately blacklisted and excluded from the journal's database.