Peer Review Procedure

Peer review aims to ensure scientific quality and compliance with academic integrity standards.

Editorial decisions are made based on peer reports and editorial assessment of scope fit.

The journal uses double-blind peer review: author and reviewer identities are concealed.

This model reduces bias and improves objectivity of expert reports.

Before peer review, manuscripts undergo editorial screening.

At this stage, the editorial office checks compliance with baseline journal requirements.

Reviewers are selected from experts competent in the manuscript's field.

The editorial office prioritizes independent external experts and avoids potential affiliation bias.

Peer review evaluates the following manuscript aspects:

The average initial editorial screening time is up to 7 business days.

External peer review typically takes 2 to 4 weeks.

The final decision is sent after expert and editorial evaluation is completed.

Based on peer review, the editorial office issues one of the following decisions:

Authors must submit a revised manuscript and a structured response to reviewer comments.

Failure to address major recommendations may result in rejection.

For substantial revisions, the manuscript may undergo a second review by the same or new reviewers.

The final decision follows analysis of second-round reports and editorial evaluation.

Manuscripts and peer reports are treated as confidential documents and are not shared with third parties.

Reviewers must not use manuscript data before official publication.

Authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest.

If a conflict exists, the editorial office may replace the reviewer or reassign editorial responsibility.

Authors may appeal editorial decisions with a reasoned academic justification.

Appeals are reviewed by the editor-in-chief and, if needed, an independent expert.