Each submitted article manuscript passes through a double-blind peer review process.

To ensure high-quality independent peer review, two reviewers are involved who have academic degrees and conduct research in a field relevant to the subject matter of the submitted article.

Reviewing is anonymous: the author’s identity is not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to the author. During the review process, each reviewer communicates only with the editorial board, but not with the author or another reviewer.

The manuscripts are reviewed based on objectivity, impartiality, constructiveness, freedom of expression, and beliefs, taking into account the Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers of the Committee on Publication Ethics / COPE.   

Reviewers are appointed by the editor-in-chief, who consults with members of the editorial board as needed regarding potential reviewers.

If the author of an article is employed by the journal’s founder, individuals employed by the journal’s founder may not serve as reviewers for that article.

If the author of an article is a member of the editorial board, members of the editorial board may not serve as reviewers for that article.

If the author of the article is the editor-in-chief, the powers to review the article are delegated to a member of the editorial board (an independent editor) who conducts research in a field corresponding to the subject matter of the submitted article. The independent editor engages reviewers, who may not be members of the editorial board or persons in an employment relationship with the journal’s founder.

The main criteria for evaluating an article during the review process are:
● relevance of the research topic
● completeness of the research topic disclosure
● clarity and rationale of the research results
● scientific novelty
● quality of content presentation
● sufficiency and relevance of sources used to achieve the research objective
● correctness and integrity in the use of borrowings.

Based on the results of the review, the reviewer chooses one of the following decisions:
● recommend publication of the article
● recommend publication of the article after minor clarifications
● revision of the article
● reject the article.

If the article is revised, it is sent to the same reviewers for reconsideration.

The initial review process usually takes 7-14 days, and the secondary review after revision takes about 7 days.

If one review is negative and contains a recommendation to reject the article, the article is submitted for additional review by a third reviewer. If the additional review is negative, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration. After substantial revision, the rejected article can be submitted as a new manuscript and goes through the review process again.

The decision to publish an article is made based on peer reviews by the editor-in-chief, who consults with other members of the editorial board as needed.

If the author of an article is a member of the editorial board, they do not participate in the consideration of the article or in the decision to publish it.

If the author of the article is the editor-in-chief, the decision to publish the article is made based on reviews by an independent editor, who consults with members of the editorial board as needed. The editor-in-chief does not participate in the consideration of the article or in the decision to publish it.

Articles and reviews are kept for three years from their submission date.