Review and editorial procedure

The editorial board of the journal practises double-blind peer review of manuscripts (the author and reviewer are not informed of each other's names), which ensures the anonymity of authors and reviewers; impartiality of peer review; objectivity in assessing the scientific novelty and quality of the author's manuscript.
We recommend that all reviewers familiarise themselves with and adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject area. Reviewing is free of charge and confidential.
Reviewers adhere to:
confidentiality;
objectivity and scientific argumentation of comments;
prohibition of using unpublished materials in their own work;
notification of the editorial board in case of suspicion of plagiarism, falsification or other violations, in particular about a possible conflict of interest.

Authors receive reviews with recommendations for revision (if necessary).
The editorial board reserves the right to reject material that:
contains plagiarism;
does not correspond to the thematic focus of the journal;
does not meet the requirements of academic integrity.

The editorial board guarantees that the decision to accept or reject an article is based solely on: the scientific level of the work; compliance with the thematic profile of the journal; ethical standards;
and does not depend on: the status of the author; institutional affiliation; external influence.

The procedure for reviewing articles in the journal includes the following stages:

1. Initial review. The editor-in-chief evaluates each manuscript to determine whether it meets the journal's criteria (relevance to the subject area, topicality, formatting of the article) and checks it for plagiarism using special software. In cases where the editor-in-chief has a conflict of interest (is the author or co-author of the article, has family or professional ties with the authors), the initial review is conducted by another member of the editorial board who does not have a conflict of interest.
Manuscripts that do not pass the initial review are rejected; the author is notified of the decision. If the manuscript meets the journal's requirements, it is sent for double-blind peer review.

2. Double-blind peer review. Manuscripts that have successfully passed the initial review are sent by the editorial board via email for double-blind peer review to scholars whose specialisation is closely related to the topic of the article. All personal data of the authors is removed from the texts of the articles beforehand.
All articles are reviewed by at least two active scientists (more if necessary); reviewers are mainly external; members of the editorial board may be involved, but at least one of the reviewers must not be a member of the editorial board. The selection of reviewers is based on their experience in a particular field.
Reviewers fill out a review using a special form. Reviewers submit their reviews to the editorial board within 20 days of receiving the article in electronic form. If circumstances arise that cause a delay in the receipt of the review, reviewers shall notify the editorial board by email. If reviewers have any questions, suggestions or comments, they should contact the journal's editorial office.
Based on the results of the review, the manuscript may be recommended:
for publication in the author's version, i.e. without any changes;
for publication after minor changes in accordance with the reviewer's comments;
for re-review after substantial revision by the author(s);
for rejection without further consideration.
After reviewing, the editor-in-chief reviews the reviewers' reports and, in some cases (for example, if the reviews differ significantly), may invite another reviewer to obtain an additional opinion before making a decision.
The list of external reviewers is published in the last issue of the journal at the end of each year.

3. Decision-making. Based on the review reports, the editor-in-chief decides whether to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript and informs the author(s) of the decision. Depending on the decision, the authors may be provided with the reviewers' comments or, in case of rejection without further consideration, no comments are provided. If the reviewers suggest certain changes (corrections, additions), the authors must take them into account.
If the decision is made to ‘send for re-review,’ the manuscript must be revised and sent for a second stage of ‘blind’ review. Revisions do not guarantee acceptance of the article; if the reviewers consider the changes unsatisfactory, the article will be rejected.
If only minor changes have been suggested, such re-review may be carried out by the editor-in-chief.
If the author objects to the results of the review, providing reasonable arguments and explanations, the editor-in-chief reviews the author's objections and informs them of the outcome.
The final decision on whether to publish the manuscript in the journal is made by the editor-in-chief, taking into account all recommendations, arguments, and compliance with the journal's requirements. The editor-in-chief does not participate in decisions regarding articles in which he or she has a conflict of interest. All such articles undergo independent review without the participation of the editor-in-chief; the final decision in this case is made by the deputy editor-in-chief.