General Provisions

Double-blind peer review is the primary method of expert evaluation of materials submitted for publication in the journal. This approach ensures objectivity and impartiality in the assessment of scientific works.

Review Timeline

• Initial screening: up to 7 working days after manuscript submission
• Peer review process: up to 30 working days from the moment materials are sent to reviewers
• Decision makingwithin 10 working days after receiving reviews

Selection of Reviewers

Reviewer Selection Criteria:

• Holding an academic degree and/or title
• Professional expertise in the relevant field
• Absence of conflicts of interest with authors
• Active publication record
• No affiliation with manuscript authors

Number of Reviewers: 2 experts

Review Process

Stages of the Process:

• Preliminary assessment by the editor
• Appointment of reviewers
• Expert evaluation
• Preparation of reviews
• Final decision making

Acceptance Criteria

Manuscripts are accepted when:

• Both reviewers provide positive feedback
• All comments are addressed during revision
• Requirements of the journal are met
• Plagiarism check is passed

Reasons for Rejection

Publication may be declined due to:

• Significant methodological flaws
• Insufficient scientific novelty
• Gross violations of ethical standards
• Inconsistency with journal scope
• Plagiarism detection
• Authors’ unwillingness to address comments

Interaction Guidelines

Confidentiality:

• All review materials are confidential
• Reviewers do not disclose their identity
• Authors do not receive reviewers’ names
• Review results are archived

Appeals Process

Appeal Procedure:

• Authors may appeal within 7 days
• Appeal is submitted to the deputy editor-in-chief
• Appeal decision is made within 10 working days
• Final decision rests with the editorial board

This peer review policy aims to ensure high-quality published materials and adherence to scientific standards in publishing activities.