Review model

The journal uses single-anonymized (single-blind) peer review: reviewers know the identities of the authors, while reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to the authors. Each research or review manuscript that passes the initial editorial assessment is evaluated by at least one independent external reviewer with relevant subject expertise. The editor may appoint additional reviewers when the manuscript is interdisciplinary, specialist methodological assessment is needed, the first review is inconclusive, or reviewer recommendations conflict.

Initial assessment

After submission, the editorial office checks whether the manuscript:

  • falls within the journal’s aims and scope;
  • follows the instructions for authors;
  • contains the required English-language metadata;
  • demonstrates adequate originality and scholarly relevance;
  • complies with research and publication ethics;
  • has been screened for textual similarity.

The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor may reject a manuscript without external review if it is outside the journal’s scope, does not meet minimum scholarly or ethical requirements, or is insufficiently prepared for review.

Reviewer selection

Reviewers are selected for their expertise and independence. Reviewers should not be from the same institution as the authors and should not have recent close collaborations, supervisory relationships, personal relationships, or financial interests that could affect their judgment.

Authors may suggest or oppose potential reviewers, but the journal is not obliged to follow these suggestions. The editorial office independently verifies the suitability of all reviewers. Reviews provided through unverifiable or inappropriate email addresses are not accepted without additional identity checks.

Review criteria

Reviewers assess:

  • originality and scholarly contribution;
  • relevance to the journal’s scope;
  • validity of the methodology and analysis;
  • reliability and clarity of the results;
  • adequacy of the discussion and conclusions;
  • ethical compliance;
  • quality and relevance of the references;
  • clarity of presentation.

Decisions and revision

The possible decisions are:

  • accept;
  • accept subject to minor revision;
  • reconsider after major revision;
  • reject.

Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments and must submit a point-by-point response when revising a manuscript. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers. If reviewer recommendations conflict, the editor may seek an additional independent review.

The reviewers advise the editor; they do not make the final decision. The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor makes the final decision based on the reviews, the authors’ responses, the manuscript’s scholarly merit, and compliance with journal policies.

Timeframes

These are target timeframes and may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts and associated correspondence as confidential. They may not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished information for personal advantage. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or confidential manuscript information to generative AI systems or other external services that do not guarantee confidentiality.