Peer Review Policy
The journal applies a double-blind peer review system, meaning that authors do not know the identity of reviewers, nor do reviewers know the identity of authors. This approach ensures impartiality and objectivity in the evaluation of manuscripts in terms of scientific quality.
- Purpose of the Peer Review Process
- Evaluation of the scientific relevance, originality, and methodological soundness of the manuscript,
- Verification of compliance with the journal’s technical and ethical standards,
- Providing constructive comments to improve the quality of the manuscript.
- Peer Review Process Workflow
The peer review process is conducted through the following steps:
- Initial editorial assessment: The Editor-in-Chief performs a preliminary evaluation of the manuscript to determine its alignment with the journal’s scope and technical standards,
- Selection of reviewers: The manuscript is sent to at least two qualified and independent reviewers without conflicts of interest,
- Review process: Reviewers are given 30 days to submit their reports. The evaluation includes scientific merit, clarity of writing, literature, and validity of results.
- Feedback to Authors
Authors receive anonymous comments with clear recommendations for revision. The recommendations may be:
- Accepted without changes,
- Accepted with minor revisions,
- Reconsidered after major revisions,
- Rejected.
- Final Decision
The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the reviewers’ reports.
- Principles of Ethics and Confidentiality
All participants in the process are required to respect the principle of confidentiality. Reviewers must avoid any conflict of interest and provide constructive, well-argued, and professional comments.
- Involvement of International Reviewers
To enhance scientific objectivity and international relevance, the journal actively engages reviewers from abroad, particularly for manuscripts with international authorship.
