The procedure for reviewing articles

Article Peer Review Procedure

Ethical Principles of Peer Review

A reviewer may not be a member of a long-term research group that includes the authors of the manuscript under review, nor a frequent co-author of any of them in other publications. A reviewer may not be the academic supervisor (scientific adviser) of any of the authors who are candidates for an academic degree. The reviewer must be an expert in the relevant sub-disciplinary field to which the submitted manuscript relates.

The review must provide an objective assessment of the scientific article and include a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological strengths and weaknesses. Reviewers must not use information obtained through the peer review process for their own advantage prior to publication. The manuscript under review is a confidential document and must not be disclosed to or discussed with third parties.

Peer Review Procedure

1. All manuscripts submitted to the Publishing House are subject to mandatory independent peer review.
2. Upon submission to the journal, the manuscript is initially assessed by the Chief Specialist for compliance with the journal’s scope, publication requirements, and formatting guidelines.
3. Authors are informed of the receipt of their manuscript and any subsequent changes in its status via email notifications.
4. The following manuscripts are not accepted for publication in the journal:
   • manuscripts containing previously published material;
   • manuscripts with an originality level below 80%;
   • manuscripts not prepared in accordance with the journal’s formatting and submission requirements;
   • manuscripts whose authors fail to address reviewers’ constructive comments or do not provide a reasoned response to them.
5. The Executive Secretary of the journal forwards the manuscript for review to one reviewer or, where necessary, to two reviewers. Reviewers may include members of the editorial board as well as highly qualified researchers and specialists from other institutions with recognised expertise and professional experience in the relevant field.
6. The peer review period is 15 days.
7. The journal operates a double-blind peer review process: the identity of the reviewer(s) is not disclosed to the author(s), and vice versa. Authors receive the review without the reviewer’s name, position, or institutional affiliation.
8. Where the reviewer recommends revisions, the journal editor forwards the review to the author with a request to take the comments into account when preparing a revised version of the manuscript or to provide a reasoned response (in full or in part).
9. The revised manuscript must be accompanied by a covering letter from the author(s) addressing all reviewer comments and explaining the changes made to the manuscript. A separate response document must be provided, and all amendments in the revised manuscript should be highlighted in colour. The revised manuscript is resubmitted for peer review together with the response to the reviewer. The date of receipt of the revised manuscript is considered the official submission date.
10. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject a manuscript if the author(s) are unwilling or unable to address the comments of the editorial team.
11. A manuscript not recommended for publication by the reviewer is not accepted for further consideration.
12. If negative reviews are received for the manuscript or its revised version, the manuscript is rejected, and the author is formally notified of the reasons for the decision.
13. Once the Editorial Board has approved the manuscript for publication, the Executive Secretary informs the author and indicates the anticipated publication timeframe.
14. Upon acceptance for publication, the Executive Secretary issues a payment invoice to the author specifying the publication fee and the Publishing House’s banking details. Publication costs may be covered by the authors, universities, research institutions, or other organisations, including through grant funding. Upon request, all necessary documentation confirming publication (contracts, statements of work, invoices, certificates) is provided.
15. The order of publication is determined by the date of manuscript registration by the Publishing House. Manuscripts addressing particularly topical scientific issues or presenting fundamentally new findings may, by decision of the Editorial Board, be published out of sequence.
16. Peer review reports are retained by the Publishing House for a minimum period of two years. The Publishing House does not engage in substantive discussions with authors regarding manuscript content, does not provide guidance on academic writing or formatting, and does not undertake editorial revision to bring manuscripts up to the required scientific or methodological standard.