Reviewing

Reviewing

Review procedure

     1. The Editor-in-Chief or Deputy evaluates the manuscript for scope, formatting requirements, and basic academic standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without being sent for review.

2. Manuscripts are sent to at least two independent experts. To avoid bias, at least at least one reviewer must b affiliated with an institution different from the authors’.

3. Reviewer Selection criteria:

- Must hold a relevant academic degree and have active research experience.

- Must have no conflict of interest with the authors or study.

- Must adhere to COPE ethics and maintain strict confidentiality.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are required to evaluate manuscripts objectively, substantiate their comments with clear arguments, and immediately notify the editorial board if any breaches of academic integrity or instances of plagiarism are identified. Additionally, reviewers must:

- Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the content of the article.

- Disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the review.

- Report ethical concerns related to the research process.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

The following aspects are assessed during the review process:

- Alignment of the article’s subject matter with the journal’s thematic profile;

- Relevance and scientific novelty of the research;

- Validity, reliability, and rigor of the results obtained;

- Practical and theoretical value of the work;

- Logical presentation, cnarity of argument, and quality of academic English/Ukrainian;

- Compliance with the journal’s specified submission guidelines.

Review Timelines and Documentation

The standard timeframe for preparing a review is up to 4 weeks. If a reviewer is unable to meet this deadline, they must notify the editorial office promptly so an alternative expert can be appointed.

Reviews are submitted via a standardised review form, which includes both qualitative analysis and specific recommendations for the authors. All review reports are used as the foundation for editorial decisions and are archived by the editorial office for a period of 5 years.

Authors receive the full text of the review, but the identity of the reviewers remains strictly confidential.

Editorial Decision-Making

- Publish the article as submitted;

- Publish after minor amendments agreed upon by the authors and editors;

- Return to the authors for substantial changes, followed by a mandatory second round of peer review;

- Reject the current version but allow resubmission after significant revision;

- Reject due to fundamental scientific or ethical shortcomings;

- Reject because the content does not align with the journal’s focus.

In the event of conflicting reviews, the manuscript is sent to a third independent reviewer for a “tie-breaking” assessment. If two negative reviews are received, the article is automatically rejected. A minimum of two positive reviews is required for a manuscript to proceed to publication.

The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board via a majority vote and is officially approved by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account peer review reports and plagiarism check results