Peer Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Office undergo a two-stage evaluation process: an Internal Review (technical and structural assessment) followed by an External Peer Review (independent expert appraisal).

I. Internal Review

  • Technical and Formal Assessment: The Editorial Board evaluates the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s aims and scope and ensures compliance with formatting guidelines. This stage involves verifying that all mandatory structural elements of a scholarly article are included. If discrepancies or technical deficiencies are identified, the manuscript is returned to the author for revision. Should the author fail to provide a revised version within 30 calendar days, the submission will be formally withdrawn from consideration.
  • Academic Integrity Verification: All submissions undergo a mandatory screening for plagiarism and text recycling using specialized software (Unicheck). In accordance with Article 42 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Education’, if evidence of plagiarism or academic dishonesty is detected, the Editorial Board will reject the manuscript without the possibility of resubmission.

II. External Independent Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the internal review undergo double-blind peer review via the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. This process ensures total anonymity: reviewers remain unaware of the authors' identities and affiliations, and authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities. This protocol minimizes subjectivity and guarantees a rigorous, impartial assessment.

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two external experts holding a PhD or equivalent doctoral degree. Reviewers are selected based on their established expertise and publication record in journals indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science, as well as in specialized Ukrainian scientific periodicals relevant to the research field.

The review procedure is governed by the national legislation of Ukraine—specifically the laws "On Scientific and Scientific-Technical Activity" and "On Copyright and Related Rights". Furthermore, the process strictly adheres to the international ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the standards of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE).

III. Reviewer Recommendations and Decisions

Following the evaluation, reviewers select one of the following recommendations via the OJS platform:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript meets all academic excellence criteria, demonstrates high originality, and adheres strictly to formatting guidelines. It is recommended for publication without further modification.
  • Revisions Required (Minor Revision): The manuscript is approved in principle but requires the correction of minor deficiencies (e.g., clarification of terminology, bibliographic adjustments, or stylistic refinements). Authors must submit revisions within 5 working days. The Editorial Board makes the final decision without a second round of external peer review.
  • Resubmit for Review (Major Revision): The manuscript requires a comprehensive overhaul, such as strengthening the evidence base, restructuring specific sections, or conducting a more profound analysis of sources. Authors are granted 14 working days for revision, after which the manuscript undergoes a mandatory re-evaluation by the reviewers.
  • Reject with Resubmission Offer: While the topic is relevant, the current research quality is insufficient (e.g., lacking empirical data or requiring additional archival research). The author is encouraged to conduct further work and may submit a substantially revised manuscript as a new submission in the future.
  • Decline Submission (Reject): The manuscript lacks scientific novelty, contains significant methodological flaws, or violates academic integrity standards. The manuscript is rejected without the possibility of resubmission to this journal.

Final provisions

  • The standard review period for a manuscript shall not exceed three months from the date of its receipt by the editorial office and successful completion of the technical check.
  • All changes made by the author following the review must be highlighted in colour within the text.
  • Authors have the right to appeal the decision by submitting a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief (appeal procedure).
  • A full description of the parties’ obligations is available in the section ‘Academic Integrity and Publication Ethics’.