Review Procedure

Guidance for Authors: How to Use This Instruction

This guide explains how manuscripts are processed in the journal—from submission to the final publication decision.

It will help authors to:

  • understand the stages of manuscript evaluation;
  • properly prepare submissions;
  • effectively respond to reviewers’ comments;
  • avoid common reasons for rejection.

Authors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all stages prior to submission and to use this guide as a practical reference when interacting with the Editorial Office.

Please note that the quality and speed of the peer review process largely depend on the level of manuscript preparation, compliance with journal policies and requirements, and the promptness of the author’s responses to reviewers’ comments.

 

Description of the Peer Review Process

 

  1. Manuscript Submission

After submission, the manuscript undergoes several mandatory stages of editorial screening and peer review.

 

  1. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)

At this stage, the Editorial Office checks:

  • compliance with the journal’s scope;
  • adherence to technical requirements;
  • academic integrity (plagiarism screening).

Outcome:

  • acceptance for peer review; or
  • rejection without peer review (with justification).

 

  1. Assignment of Reviewers

The manuscript is assigned to at least two independent experts.

The journal applies a Double-Blind Peer Review process:

  • reviewers are unaware of the authors’ identities;
  • authors are unaware of the reviewers’ identities.

 

  1. Peer Review
  • standard timeframe: up to 4–8 weeks;
  • reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on scientific criteria (novelty, methodology, relevance, etc.);
  • additional materials may be requested if necessary.

Authors receive anonymized review reports.

 

  1. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editorial Office may decide to:

  • accept the manuscript;
  • accept subject to revisions;
  • request re-review;
  • reject the manuscript.

In case of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be involved.

 

  1. Manuscript Revision

If revisions are required, the author must:

  • revise the manuscript in accordance with reviewers’ comments;
  • submit the updated version;
  • provide a response to reviewers’ comments (if necessary).

The revised manuscript may be sent for additional review.

 

  1. Appeals

Authors have the right to:

  • submit a reasoned response to the reviewers’ comments;
  • request reconsideration of the decision.

The final decision is made by the Editorial Office.

 

  1. Confidentiality and Ethics
  • manuscripts are treated as confidential documents;
  • all participants adhere to principles of academic integrity;
  • conflicts of interest are avoided at all stages.

 

  1. Acceptance and Publication

After acceptance, the manuscript:

  • undergoes scientific, language, and technical editing;
  • the final version is approved by the author;
  • publication is carried out in accordance with established procedures.

 

Estimated Timelines

  • initial screening: up to 5 days;
  • peer review: up to 60 days;
  • author revisions: individual timeframe.