Review Procedure Description

1. The Editorial Board appoints at least one independent reviewer from outside the institution for each publication.

2. Authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identities (double-blind review process).

3. The review must be provided in writing and must include a clear conclusion on whether the article should be accepted for publication or rejected.

4. The criteria for qualifying publications are outlined in the “Guidelines for Authors” section.

5. The names of reviewers for individual issues are not disclosed; once a year, the journal publishes a list of cooperating reviewers.

Review Guidelines

1. Reviewers participate in the work of the editorial team and influence the decisions made by the Editorial Board.

2. The review is conducted in a double-blind format, meaning that the Authors and Reviewers do not know each other’s identities.

3. The identity of the Authors is unknown to the Reviewer but known to the Editorial Board.

4. The names of reviewers for specific issues are not disclosed in the journal. Once a year, the journal publishes a public list of collaborating reviewers.

5. All scholarly texts are subject to review (non-scholarly reviews, reports, and interviews are excluded).

6. The review takes place before the publication of the text, after the manuscript is submitted by the Author to the Editorial Board.

7. The Editorial Board appoints at least one independent Reviewer from an institution other than the Author’s affiliated academic unit (external reviews).

8. The selection of Reviewers is the responsibility of the Editorial Board, based primarily on the Reviewer’s research interests, academic achievements, and expertise in the relevant field.

9. A Reviewer may decline to conduct a review for formal reasons (e.g., conflict of interest, inability to meet the deadline) or informal reasons (e.g., the text does not align with their research interests). In such cases, the Reviewer must promptly inform the Editorial Board.

10. Members of the Editorial Board or the Scientific Board cannot serve as Reviewers.

11. If the Author of the manuscript is a member of the Editorial Board or the Scientific Board, the Reviewer must be appointed by another Editorial Board member who is not the Author.

12. Reviews must be submitted in writing. The Reviewer may provide a review form or complete the review using the appropriate online form. The review must include a clear recommendation for acceptance or rejection of the article.

13. Only texts that have undergone the review process and received a positive review can be accepted for publication by the Editorial Board.

14. The evaluation criteria considered during the review process are outlined in the review form.

15. The Editorial Board provides the Reviewer with the review form, which is the primary document for expressing the Reviewer’s conclusions. The Reviewer may also submit additional materials (e.g., written comments, annotated manuscript).

16. The content of the reviews is not made public.

17. Review reports are available to the Authors (in anonymized form) and the Editorial Board.

18. No direct interaction between Authors and Reviewers is allowed. All communication is anonymized. Review reports and recommendations, as well as Author responses, are transmitted via the Editorial Board or through an appropriate system that ensures anonymity in the double-blind review process.