Scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of a specialist academic journal are subject to mandatory peer review, with the anonymity of the reviewers guaranteed. A double-blind peer review model is employed, whereby the authors’ personal details are not disclosed to the reviewers and, conversely, the reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to the authors.

Reviewing is carried out on the basis of a standardised questionnaire covering a range of criteria for evaluating scientific material. In particular, the following are subject to analysis: the presence of a potential conflict of interest between the author and the reviewer; the level of originality of the text (taking into account the technical report on textual similarities); the correspondence of the title to the content of the article; the completeness of the content in the abstract; the justification of the relevance of the research; the logical connection between the problem addressed and contemporary scientific and practical challenges; the alignment of the research objective with the stated problem; the soundness of the conclusions based on theoretical analysis and/or experimental data; the adequacy of the justification for the results obtained; the consistency of the conclusions with the content of the work; the potential for further research; as well as the level of linguistic and stylistic correctness of the presentation. The timeframe for a reviewer to consider an article is, as a rule, up to one week.

Where research has involved human subjects, animals or personal data, authors are required to submit supporting documentation confirming compliance with ethical standards, including decisions of the relevant ethics committees, research protocols and written consent forms from participants. All such requirements must comply with current Ukrainian legislation, particularly in the area of personal data protection.

Type of review: double-blind peer review, which entails:

‒ the reviewer’s personal data not being disclosed to the author(s);

‒ the author(s)’ personal data not being disclosed to the reviewer.

Criteria for selecting reviewers:

‒ holding a PhD or DSc;

‒ having academic publications on the subject of the material under review;

‒ having publications in journals indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science;

‒ no conflict of interest with the authors;

‒ no more than one reviewer from the author’s institution;

‒ involvement of international reviewers (where possible);

‒ no co-authorship with the authors within the last three years.

Review procedure:

Stage 1. Preliminary review (up to 7 days):

‒ the material is checked for compliance with the journal’s thematic scope;

‒ the text is checked for plagiarism using specialised software (iThenticate or Unicheck);

‒ analysis of compliance with formatting requirements;

‒ a decision is made based on the results: to send for review or to reject.

Stage 2. Appointment of reviewers (2–3 days):

‒ selection of two independent experts;

‒ sending out requests for review;

‒ providing reviewers with an anonymised version of the manuscript.

Stage 3. Review (1–2 weeks):

‒ the reviewer carries out an expert assessment based on the following criteria:

‒ relevance of the topic and level of scientific novelty;

‒ consistency between the title and the content;

‒ quality of the review of scientific sources;

‒ soundness and correctness of the methodology;

‒ reliability of the results obtained;

‒ logicality and soundness of the conclusions;

‒ quality of formatting and language.

Stage 4. Editorial Board decision:

Recommendations are made based on the reviews:

‒ accept (accept as is);

‒ minor revisions (accept after minor revisions without further peer review);

‒ major revisions (accept after substantial revisions with re-review);

‒ reject and resubmit (reject with the option to resubmit);

‒ reject (reject).

In the event of discrepancies in the reviewers’ conclusions, a third reviewer is consulted or the decision is made by the editorial board.

Stage 5. Author revisions (up to 7 days):

‒ the author receives anonymised comments;

‒ prepares a revised version of the manuscript;

‒ provides a point-by-point response to the comments.

Stage 6. Final decision:

the final decision is made based on the reviewers’ recommendations.

The peer review process involves recording all stages of consideration, storing reviews, correspondence and relevant statuses in the editorial system. Reviews are formatted according to the established template and stored in the editorial archive for three years. Upon request by authorised bodies, they may be provided for verification. The author has the right to appeal against a rejection decision within a specified timeframe; the appeal is considered by an independent member of the editorial board.

Once an article has been accepted for publication, it undergoes copy-editing, editing of the English-language abstract, and final approval by the author. The editorial board reserves the right to discontinue the preparation of the material for publication should the author fail to address editorial comments or make changes that were not covered by the peer review.

A reviewer has the right to recommend rejection of an article if it does not meet scientific, thematic or editorial requirements. Materials that have received a negative review will not be accepted for reconsideration. A positive review does not guarantee automatic publication.

The editorial board recognises adherence to ethical standards as an integral part of editorial activity and is guided by the principles of academic integrity. The editorial board is responsible for decisions regarding the publication of materials, ensuring the quality of content, the development of the journal, and the openness of scientific communication.

At the same time, authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy of the data presented and for ensuring that the materials comply with legal requirements, ethical norms and scientific standards. The editorial board is not responsible for the substantive or methodological correctness of the materials, nor for the accuracy of references.

Submission of an article requires authors to comply with the following requirements: ensuring the originality of the text; addressing reviewers’ comments; avoiding simultaneous submission of the material to other publications; ensuring there are no previous publications of similar content; correct citation; compliance with requirements regarding restricted-access information; and confirmation of the authorship contribution of all co-authors and their consent to publication.

The editorial policy is based on the international standards of COPE, WAME and DORA, which provide for transparency of editorial procedures, independence of editorial decisions, prevention of plagiarism and other forms of misconduct, as well as support for the principles of open science.

The editorial board reserves the right to reject a manuscript if it does not meet the journal’s requirements and will not alter decisions once made without due justification.