Peer-review

1. Type and Principles of Peer Review

The journal follows a double-blind peer review model. This procedure ensures maximum objectivity and impartiality of the evaluation because:

  • Anonymity: The reviewer does not receive information regarding the personal data of the authors.

  • Confidentiality: The authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

  • Mediation: All communication between the parties is conducted exclusively through the editorial board.

  • Ethics: Reviewers are obliged to adhere to the principles of confidentiality, professional ethics (including COPE recommendations), and avoid any conflicts of interest.

2. Reviewer Selection Criteria

Both members of the editorial board and external experts are involved in the peer review of manuscripts. The primary requirements for candidates are:

  • Scientific Qualification: Possession of a scientific degree (PhD or Doctor of Sciences) in the relevant field.

  • Expertise: A record of recent publications on the article's topic, particularly in journals indexed in the Scopus or Web of Science databases.

  • Reputation: Experience in reviewing for professional publications and the absence of a conflict of interest regarding the authors or their institutions.

3. Procedural Deadlines

The manuscript processing workflow is strictly regulated to ensure timely publication:

  • Initial Control: Verification of relevance to the journal’s scope and plagiarism check — up to 7 days.

  • Assignment of Experts: Takes up to 7 days.

  • Review Preparation: The standard period ranges from 14 days to 1 month, but cannot exceed 2 months.

  • Author Revision: In case of required amendments, the author is granted up to 14 days to submit the revised version.

4. Documentation and Evaluation Aspects

Peer review is conducted by completing a standardized form (questionnaire). Experts evaluate the manuscript based on the following parameters:

  • Relevance of the topic and scientific novelty of the results.

  • Methodological validity and reliability of the obtained data.

  • Quality of the literature review and representativeness of the sources.

  • Alignment of the conclusions with the stated objectives and the practical value of the work.

  • Quality of formatting, language usage, and terminology.

All reviews are stored in the editorial archive for 3 years.

5. Decision Making

Based on the conclusions of at least two independent reviewers, the editorial board makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept for publication in its current form.

  • Recommend for publication with minor revisions (without a second round of review).

  • Send for revision with the requirement of mandatory re-review.

  • Reject the article due to non-compliance with requirements, presence of plagiarism, or lack of scientific value.

The final decision regarding the admission of materials to an issue is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the editorial board as a whole. In case of disagreement with the experts' conclusions, authors have the right to provide a reasoned response, which may serve as a basis for involving an additional reviewer.

The journal operates on the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, which ensures a transparent and documented editorial process. Submissions are accepted both through the website’s online portal and via email at zhrznu@gmail.com