Review Policy

1. General Provisions

The journal applies independent scholarly peer review as the main mechanism for ensuring the quality of academic publications.

The peer review process is aimed at providing an objective assessment of the scientific quality of submitted manuscripts, their relevance, originality, and compliance with the thematic scope of the journal.

The journal’s peer review policy is based on international standards of academic ethics and scholarly publishing, in particular the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the terminology of ANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023 Standard Terminology for Peer Review.

2. Peer Review Model

The journal uses the Double Anonymous Peer Review / Double-Blind Peer Review model.

Under this model:

  • authors do not know the identities of the reviewers;
  • reviewers do not have access to the identities of the authors;
  • all materials under review are treated as confidential.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

After manuscript submission, the editorial office conducts a preliminary screening, which includes:

  • compliance with the journal’s scope;
  • compliance with formatting and submission requirements;
  • verification of academic integrity;
  • preliminary assessment of the scientific quality of the manuscript.

At this stage, the editorial office may decide to reject the manuscript without external review (desk rejection).

4. Criteria for Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected by the editorial office with due regard to their scholarly competence and expertise in the relevant field of research.

The main criteria for selecting reviewers are:

  • an academic degree or substantial research experience in the relevant field;
  • published research on the subject matter of the manuscript;
  • professional reputation within the academic community;
  • absence of any conflict of interest in relation to the authors or the manuscript;
  • independence from the authors and their affiliated institutions.

Both Ukrainian and international scholars may be invited to serve as reviewers.

5. Number of Reviews

Each manuscript is sent to at least two independent reviewers.

The editorial office may appoint an additional reviewer in cases of:

  • substantial discrepancies between reviewers’ reports;
  • the need for additional expert evaluation;
  • the interdisciplinary nature of the research.

A decision on publication is made on the basis of no fewer than two reviews (expert reports).

6. Peer Review Procedure

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following main criteria:

  • scientific originality of the research;
  • relevance and significance of the topic;
  • soundness of the methodology;
  • reliability and validity of the findings;
  • logical structure and clarity of presentation;
  • compliance with academic citation standards.

7. Editorial Decisions Based on Peer Review

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editorial office may make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept – accept the manuscript for publication;
  • Minor Revision – accept subject to minor revisions;
  • Major Revision – invite the author to make substantial revisions and resubmit;
  • Reject – reject the manuscript.

The editorial decision is made by the responsible editor based on the recommendations of the reviewers.

8. Procedure for Replacing a Reviewer

A reviewer may be replaced if a conflict of interest is identified or if the reviewer is unable to complete the review.

Grounds for replacing a reviewer include:

  • the existence of a conflict of interest;
  • professional or personal relationships with the author(s);
  • breach of confidentiality;
  • failure to submit the review within the agreed timeframe;
  • refusal to conduct the review.

In such cases, the editorial office appoints another independent expert who meets the established reviewer selection criteria.

9. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must inform the editorial office of any actual or potential conflict of interest, including cases where they:

  • work at the same institution as the author(s);
  • have co-authored publications with the author(s);
  • have any financial or other interest in the results of the research.

In such cases, the reviewer must decline the review, and the editorial office will appoint another expert.

10. Review of Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

If a manuscript is submitted by a member of the editorial office, editorial board, or any other person involved in the editorial process of the journal, the editorial office ensures compliance with the principles of impartiality and transparency in evaluation.

In such cases, the following rules apply:

  • an editor or editorial board member who is the author of a manuscript does not participate in the review process or in making editorial decisions regarding that manuscript;
  • editorial management of the review process is transferred to another editor or the responsible editor of the journal;
  • the manuscript undergoes the full double anonymous peer review procedure under the same conditions as all other submissions;
  • independent reviewers with no relationship to the author or the editorial office are appointed to review the manuscript.

The journal ensures compliance with the principles of editorial independence and academic integrity.

11. Confidentiality of Peer Review

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript with third parties;
  • use the results or data contained in the manuscript before publication.

12. Appeals Procedure

Authors have the right to submit an appeal if they disagree with an editorial decision to reject a manuscript.

An appeal may be submitted if the author believes that:

  • the peer review process was biased or unfair;
  • a review contains substantial errors or unsubstantiated comments;
  • the editorial decision failed to take the author’s arguments into account.

The appeal must be submitted to the editorial office in writing and must include:

  • a reasoned explanation of the disagreement with the editorial decision;
  • the author’s response to the reviewers’ comments;
  • an explanation of the scholarly arguments requiring reconsideration.

Upon receipt of the appeal, the editorial office:

  • considers the author’s arguments;
  • may appoint an additional independent review;
  • makes a final editorial decision.

The decision made after consideration of the appeal is final.

13. Time Limit for Filing an Appeal

An appeal must be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date the author receives the editorial decision.

Appeals submitted after this period may not be considered.

14. Average Manuscript Processing Times

  • Initial editorial screening: up to 7 working days;
  • Academic integrity and plagiarism screening: up to 3 working days;
  • Double-blind peer review: 10–30 calendar days;
  • Author revision period (if required): up to 15 calendar days;
  • Additional round of double-blind peer review (if required): up to 14 calendar days.

The average time from manuscript submission to publication is approximately 30–45 calendar days.

The final decision regarding publication is made only after completion of the peer-review process and consideration of all reviewers' recommendations.

Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee its publication. Each manuscript undergoes an independent editorial evaluation and peer-review process and may be rejected at any stage if it does not meet the journal’s scientific, ethical, or editorial standards.