Review procedure

Submitted texts, after confirmation of completeness and compliance with the journal profile and Editorial guidelines, are subject to preliminary evaluation by the Executive Editor. The evaluation of the text is not influenced by: citizenship, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation or religious and political beliefs of the authors.
All submitted works are reviewed by at least two reviewers from outside the author's university (institution). The Editorial Board selects reviewers from among specialists in the field.
Reviews are double-blind.
The reviewer assesses the work in terms of the accuracy of the title formulation, abstract, selection of keywords, formulation of the objective and conclusions, reliability and adequacy of methods and interpretation of results, originality and importance of the problem, scope of the literature used.
The reviewer's assessment should be objective and relate only to substantive issues.
The reviewer assists the Editorial Board in making decisions and any comments on the work can only be submitted through the Editorial System. By accepting the invitation to perform a review, the reviewer undertakes to perform it within the specified time frame, and in the event of any obstacles, informs the Editorial Board so that other reviewers can be selected.
All elements of the work submitted for review should be treated as confidential documents. Sharing their content with third parties is unacceptable.
Information covered by professional secrecy or ideas obtained in the review process remain confidential and cannot be used to achieve personal gain. The reviewer is obliged to report any potential conflict of interest arising from rivalry, cooperation or other relationship with any of the Authors.
The review is prepared in a digital review form. The reviewer, when making an assessment, uses a point scale in the range of 0–5. The form allows for the introduction of detailed comments and remarks intended only for the Editorial Board.
After making the assessment, the reviewer assigns the article his decision: accept without changes, accept after changes, accept after taking into account the Reviewer's comments, accept after verifying the implementation of the Reviewer's comments, reject.
Reviewers' comments are forwarded to the author of the text and the Editorial Office. The author attaches responses to the reviews to the revised version of the article.
In disputed matters, the final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
Article reviews are prepared free of charge.
The list of reviewers performing reviews in a given year is published at the end of each subsequent year on the journal's website in the Reviewers section.
A reviewer who has performed a review of a work in a given calendar year receives a written certificate of its performance.
Reviews and all documentation of the review process are stored in the Editorial Office archive.

Simplified review form:
Review form.pdf

Submit your paper

Guide for authors