Peer Review Process

 

 

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system.

 

All submissions are initially checked for compliance with journal requirements (format, structure, abstract, keywords, references, etc.).

 

 

 

Manuscripts that do not fit the journal’s scope or fail basic requirements may be rejected without peer review.

 

Suitable manuscripts are screened for originality and plagiarism.

 

 

 

Typically, 2–3 independent reviewers with relevant expertise are selected.

 

Reviewers must not be from the same institution as the authors or part of the editorial board.

 

The journal uses a double-blind review system: reviewers do not know authors’ identities, and vice versa.

 

 

 

Reviewers evaluate: research methodology, originality, scientific significance, clarity, references, and ethical compliance for studies involving humans or animals.

 

Reviewers recommend one of the following: accept, minor/major revision, or reject.

 

 

 

The Editor-in-Chief or editorial board reviews all reports.

 

In case of conflicting opinions, an additional reviewer may be consulted.

 

Authors receive a decision letter along with reviewers’ comments.

 

 

 

Authors are required to submit revised manuscripts within the specified time frame, addressing reviewers’ comments.

 

Depending on the extent of revisions, the manuscript may be re-evaluated by the same or additional reviewers.

 

 

 

Upon final acceptance, the manuscript enters production (formatting, language/technical editing, electronic/print publication).

 

Authors are notified of acceptance and provided with a DOI or equivalent reference number.

 

 

 

The peer review process is confidential.

 

Reviewers must not share or discuss the manuscript outside the review process.

 

Manuscripts failing originality checks or violating ethical standards (plagiarism, data fabrication, conflicts of interest) will be rejected.