Peer review policy

1. General Provisions

All submitted manuscripts undergo a mandatory double‑blind peer‑review process. The purpose of peer review is to ensure scientific quality, reliability of results, and the alignment of the manuscript with the journal’s scope and academic standards.

The Editorial Office adheres to the ethical guidelines of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) regarding peer‑review integrity and editorial practices.

2. Independence and Confidentiality

  • The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and vice versa.
  • Reviewers act independently and are unaware of the identities of other reviewers involved in the evaluation.
  • All information obtained during peer review is confidential and must not be used for personal benefit.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are appointed by the Editor or members of the Editorial Board.

3.1. Reviewer Selection Criteria

A reviewer must:

  • possess subject‑matter expertise relevant to the manuscript;
  • not be affiliated with the same institution as the author(s);
  • have no co‑authorships with the author(s) within the past three years;
  • have relevant scholarly publications;
  • for the English‑language reviewer group: have at least three publications in English‑language journals indexed in Scopus or Web of Science.

4. Reviewer Groups

The Editorial Office maintains two reviewer groups:

  • a Ukrainian‑language reviewer group (scholars with advanced academic qualifications in relevant fields);
  • an English‑language reviewer group (native speakers and/or international experts with Scopus/WoS‑indexed publications).

5. Peer‑Review Stages and Timelines

Peer review is conducted according to the journal’s approved editorial timelines.

5.1. Standard Peer‑Review Duration

  • Up to 90 calendar days for the first review round.
  • Up to 45–60 calendar days for a subsequent review round (if required).
  • Authors have up to 30 days to revise the manuscript.

5.2. Delay Notifications

If any stage exceeds the target timeline by more than 15 days, the Editorial Office notifies the authors and provides an updated estimated date of completion.

6. Peer‑Review Procedure

  • The author submits the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s submission guidelines.
  • Two independent reviewers conduct double‑blind peer review, evaluating the scientific merit, methodological soundness, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope.
  • If linguistic or content‑related deficiencies are identified during the review process, the manuscript is returned to the author for revision in accordance with the reviewers’ recommendations.

7. Evaluation Criteria and Review Structure

Reviewers receive a standardized evaluation form that includes the following criteria:

  • relevance to the journal’s thematic scope;
  • scientific novelty;
  • methodological validity;
  • theoretical and practical significance;
  • quality of structure, presentation, and academic English;
  • adherence to ethical standards.

The form includes space for detailed comments and recommendations aimed at improving the manuscript.

8. Possible Reviewer Decisions

  • Accept – suitable for publication
  • Minor Revision – minor corrections required
  • Major Revision – substantial revision required
  • Reject – unsuitable for publication

All review reports are sent to authors in anonymized form.

9. Conflicting or Ambiguous Reviews

If the conclusions of two reviewers contradict one another:

  • the Editor may appoint an additional reviewer, or
  • refer the manuscript to a designated member of the Editorial Board for a final decision.

10. Quality Control of Peer Review

The Editorial Office ensures the quality and integrity of all reviews and may:

  • request additional materials from authors (data, codes, documentation);
  • reject reviews that are insufficiently substantiated or biased;
  • initiate a second independent review if concerns arise regarding review quality.

All supplementary materials are kept confidential.

11. Violations of Peer‑Review Ethics

In cases of misconduct (bias, inappropriate tone, breach of confidentiality), the reviewer may be removed from the journal’s reviewer database.