Peer Review Policy

All manuscripts submitted to the scholarly professional journal undergo mandatory peer review with ensured reviewer anonymity. The journal applies a *double-blind peer review* model, which means that the identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors .

Peer review is conducted using a standardized evaluation form covering a comprehensive set of criteria. These include, in particular, the presence of any potential conflict of interest between author and reviewer, the level of text originality (based on similarity reports), consistency between the title and content of the article, adequacy of the abstract, justification of the study’s relevance, coherence between the research problem and current scientific and practical challenges, alignment of the research aim with the stated problem, validity of conclusions based on theoretical and/or empirical data, sufficiency of justification of the results obtained, consistency of conclusions with the content, identification of prospects for further research, and the quality of language and academic style. The typical review period is up to one week .

In cases where research involves human participants, animals, or personal data, authors are required to provide supporting documentation confirming compliance with ethical standards, including decisions of relevant ethics committees, research protocols, and informed consent forms. All such requirements must comply with the current legislation of Ukraine, particularly in the field of personal data protection .

Type of peer review: double-blind peer review, ensuring:

anonymity of authors for reviewers;

anonymity of reviewers for authors .

Reviewer selection criteria:

Reviewers must hold a PhD or doctoral degree, have relevant publications in the subject area of the manuscript, including publications indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science, have no conflict of interest with the authors, and must not have co-authored with the authors within the last three years. No more than one reviewer may be affiliated with the same institution as the author, and international reviewers are involved where possible .

Peer review procedure:

Stage 1. Initial screening (up to 7 days):

The manuscript is checked for compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, and originality using specialized software (e.g., iThenticate or Unicheck). Based on the results, the manuscript is either sent for review or rejected

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

Two independent reviewers are selected, invited, and provided with an anonymized version of the manuscript .

Stage 3. Peer review (1–2 weeks):

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript in terms of relevance, scientific novelty, quality of literature review, methodological rigor, validity of results, coherence of conclusions, and quality of presentation .

Stage 4. Editorial decision:

Based on reviewers’ reports, one of the following decisions is made:

accept;

minor revisions;

major revisions;

reject and resubmit;

reject .

In case of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be appointed or the editorial board makes the final decision.

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

Authors receive anonymized comments, submit a revised version, and provide a point-by-point response to reviewers’ remarks .

Stage 6. Final decision:

The final decision is made based on reviewers’ recommendations.

The peer review process includes documentation of all stages, storage of reviews and correspondence in the editorial system, and archiving of review reports for at least three years. Upon request of authorized bodies, these materials may be provided for verification. Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions, which are then considered by an independent member of the editorial board .

After acceptance, the manuscript undergoes language editing, editing of the English abstract, and final approval by the author. The editorial board reserves the right to discontinue the publication process if the author fails to address editorial comments or introduces unreviewed changes.

Reviewers may recommend rejection if the manuscript does not meet scientific, thematic, or editorial standards. Manuscripts that receive negative reviews are not reconsidered. A positive review does not guarantee publication.

The editorial board adheres to ethical standards as an integral component of editorial activity and follows the principles of academic integrity. The editorial team is responsible for publication decisions, quality assurance, and transparency of scholarly communication, while authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy of data, compliance with ethical and legal standards, and proper citation.

Submission of a manuscript implies that authors ensure originality, address reviewers’ comments, do not submit the manuscript simultaneously to other journals, avoid duplicate publication, provide proper citations, comply with restrictions on confidential information, and confirm the contribution and consent of all co-authors .

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