Each submitted article manuscript passes through a double-blind peer review process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The manuscripts are reviewed on the basis of objectivity, impartiality, constructiveness, freedom of expression, and beliefs, taking into account the requirements of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)<\/a> and the criteria of the Publishing Ethics Resource Kit<\/a> of Elsevier. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The main criteria for evaluating an article during the review process are: Based on the results of the review, the reviewer chooses one of the following decisions: If the article is revised, it is sent to the same reviewers for reconsideration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The initial review process usually takes 7-14 days, and the secondary review after revision takes about 7 days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Articles and reviews are kept for three years from their submission date. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":476,"menu_order":4,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-230","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/230","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=230"}],"version-history":[{"count":31,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/230\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8153,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/230\/revisions\/8153"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/476"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\u25cf<\/strong> relevance of the research topic
\u25cf<\/strong> completeness of the research topic disclosure
\u25cf<\/strong> clarity and rationale of the research results
\u25cf<\/strong> scientific novelty
\u25cf<\/strong> quality of content presentation
\u25cf<\/strong> sufficiency and relevance of sources used to achieve the research objective
\u25cf<\/strong> correctness and integrity in the use of borrowings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u25cf<\/strong> recommend publication of the article
\u25cf<\/strong> recommend publication of the article after minor clarifications
\u25cf<\/strong> revision of the article
\u25cf<\/strong> reject the article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n