Peer Review Process

Manuscripts of a theoretical and methodological nature that fall within the journal’s scope are accepted for consideration. A manuscript that does not match the journal’s aims and scope or fails to meet the formatting requirements may be rejected at the initial editorial screening stage (without external peer review).
The journal applies double-blind peer review: the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other. Prior to review, all personal data are removed from the manuscript text and from file metadata.
Each submission is sent to two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Peer review is administered by the editorial office through the journal’s online system. The editorial team does not review its own manuscripts; external reviewers are engaged when necessary.

Manuscripts submitted by editors and editorial board members

To avoid conflicts of interest and ensure impartial handling, manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, or editorial board members are processed under a separate procedure:

  1. The manuscript is assigned to an independent handling editor who is not a co-author and has no conflict of interest with the manuscript or the author(s).
  2. If the Editor-in-Chief is an author/co-author, they do not take part in any editorial decision on the manuscript and do not access reviewer reports in any way that could influence the decision.
  3. The manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by two independent reviewers, with conflicts of interest checked in advance.
  4. All decisions (sending for review, requesting revisions, acceptance, or rejection) are made by the independent handling editor based on the reviews and the journal’s requirements.
  5. The use of this separate procedure is recorded in the journal’s editorial system (OJS) as part of the editorial workflow.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and complete a review form that includes comments and a recommendation. The indicative review timeline is up to 4 weeks.

Possible editorial decisions

  • Accept as is (the manuscript is ready for publication)
  • Accept with revisions (subject to addressing reviewers’ comments)
  • Resubmit for review (substantial revisions and re-evaluation are required)
  • Reject (the manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements / scholarly criteria)
  • Recommend submission to another journal (the topic fits a different journal better)

After the review is completed, the editorial office communicates the decision and reviewers’ comments to the author. The author submits the revised manuscript via the journal system. If a revised manuscript is not returned within 2 months and the author has not provided reasons for the delay, the submission is removed from active consideration and archived in the journal’s system. The submission may be reinstated upon the author’s request to the editorial office.
When a revised version is submitted, the manuscript may be sent to the reviewers for re-evaluation.

Review criteria

Peer review aims to assess the quality of the manuscript, including:

  • compliance with the journal’s scope and policies;
  • clarity of the research problem/objectives and coherence of the presentation;
  • justification of the relevance of the study;
  • research character and methodological soundness;
  • strength of argumentation, quality of conclusions, and correctness of references;
  • scientific novelty and/or practical significance of the results;
  • consistency between the title and the content;
  • presence of conclusions and a reference list.

In the case of an unfavorable review outcome, the editorial office reserves the right to reject the manuscript.

Appeals procedure

  1. If an author disagrees with specific reviewer comments, the author may submit an appeal in the format “reviewer comment - author response”. The appeal is reviewed by the editorial office and, if necessary, forwarded to the reviewer for clarification.
  2. If reviewers provide contradictory recommendations (e.g., accept/reject), the editorial office consults the reviewers and considers all comments to reach a reasoned decision.
  3. If a final decision cannot be reached, the editorial office appoints a third independent reviewer, after which a final editorial decision is made.