All manuscripts submitted for publication are subject to a peer review process conducted by independent reviewers with appropriate academic qualifications and expertise relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript. The purpose of the review process is to ensure the high scientific quality of published articles and to uphold the principles of research integrity and publication ethics.
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for its compliance with the journal’s scope, editorial requirements, and fundamental principles of publication ethics. The Editorial Board may request that the author revise or complete the manuscript before peer review or may reject the manuscript if it does not meet the journal’s requirements.
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial assessment are submitted for review by one or two independent reviewers in accordance with the journal’s peer review procedure (single-blind review or double-blind review). Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise and research experience in the relevant field, while ensuring impartiality, confidentiality, and the absence of conflicts of interest.
The review process includes an assessment of the scientific or practical value of the manuscript, the originality of the research topic, methodological soundness, the validity of the conclusions, the overall quality of the manuscript, the relevance and currency of the cited literature, and the manuscript’s consistency with the journal’s scope. Reviewers may also provide comments regarding the structure, language, presentation of results, and completeness of the manuscript.
At the conclusion of the review process, the reviewer or reviewers issue a recommendation regarding the publication of the manuscript. The possible recommendations are:
- the manuscript is accepted for publication in its current form;
- the manuscript is accepted for publication subject to minor revisions;
- the manuscript is not accepted for publication.
The author is informed of the outcome of the peer review process and receives the anonymous review comments together with the Editorial Board’s decision. If revisions are required, the author is expected to submit a revised version of the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ recommendations and, where appropriate, provide a detailed response explaining how the comments have been addressed. The author has the right to respond to all reviewer comments and to provide a reasoned justification where any of the proposed revisions are not accepted. The author’s response is considered by the Editorial Board and, where appropriate, may be forwarded to the reviewer for further evaluation. If necessary, the revised manuscript may be subjected to an additional round of peer review.
The final decision regarding the acceptance of a manuscript for publication is made by the Editorial Board, taking into account the reviewers’ recommendations, the author’s responses, the scientific quality of the manuscript, and its compliance with the journal’s scope and editorial standards.