Review Guidelines

Peer review is intended to ensure the quality of published materials, to assess their scholarly, methodological, and practical value, and to support authors in improving their work.

Response to the Review Request. A review is expected to be completed within two weeks. If you are unable to complete the review within this timeframe, please inform the editorial office in advance.

Please also notify the editors if the manuscript’s topic does not match your areas of interest or expertise.

Content of the Review. A review typically includes:

• Main strengths — a reasoned description of the positive aspects of the manuscript.
• Comments and weaknesses — specific, well-founded observations regarding substantive, methodological, or formal issues.
• Recommendations for improvement — suggestions for revising the manuscript (if applicable).
• Overall assessment and publication recommendation — a final conclusion regarding suitability for publication.

The editorial process includes literary and technical editing; therefore, reviewers are asked not to focus on minor formatting issues or small linguistic imperfections, which will be addressed during preparation for publication.

Reviewer Recommendations. The reviewer may recommend:

• publication without revisions;
• minor revisions that do not require further review;
• major revisions followed by a second round of review;
• rejection due to substantial flaws that prevent publication.

Evaluation Criteria. When preparing a review, we ask reviewers to consider:

• the relevance of the topic and its place within the scholarly or methodological discussion;
• the adequacy and completeness of the literature review (if applicable);
• the clarity of the research question, goals, and objectives;
• the soundness of the methodology and appropriateness of the data (if applicable);
• the correctness of result interpretation and the strength of the conclusions (if applicable);
• the structure and logical coherence of the text;
• the quality of figures, graphs, tables, and references;
• adherence to principles of research integrity and ethics.

Ethics of Reviewing. The review must be written respectfully and avoid personal remarks.

Some manuscripts may be the author’s first scholarly work; therefore, more experienced reviewers are especially encouraged to maintain objectivity, constructiveness, and a supportive tone.

The journal uses a double-blind review model. Reviewers should not attempt to identify the author. If the author’s identity is assumed based on content or writing style, reviewers must strictly refrain from any direct contact or communication with the author.

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential. They must not be used, shared, cited, or discussed with third parties without permission from the editorial office.

Review Procedure. The reviewer completes the review form within the editorial system.

Two text fields are provided: one for comments visible to both the editor and the author, and one for confidential comments accessible only to the editor. Reviewers may also upload an additional file (e.g., a marked-up manuscript).

Communication with the editors within the system is available through the discussion panel, which can be used to ask clarifying questions, report technical issues, or comment on the review process.

After completing the review, the reviewer must select a final recommendation from the dropdown menu and submit the review by clicking the corresponding button.

Competing Interests. The reviewer must inform the editorial office of any conflict or competing interest that may affect the objectivity and impartiality of the manuscript evaluation and must decline the review.

A conflict or competing interest may arise in situations involving personal relationships (friendship, family ties, pronounced personal animosity), professional rivalry, direct administrative or academic dependence, financial or other material interests, or any other circumstances that may undermine confidence in the reviewer’s objectivity.