These guidelines are based on the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and adapted to the journal’s editorial policy.

Reviewers must follow the ethical principles defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and recommended for scholarly journals.

1. Objectivity

Reviewers should avoid any form of bias, including:

• negative bias related to nationality, language, research topic, or negative results;
• positive bias related to the author’s reputation or honorary authorship practices.

In the case of double-blind peer review, reviewers must remain unaware of the authors’ identities to reduce the risk of bias; likewise, authors must not know the identity of the reviewer to avoid potential conflicts or undue influence.

Reviewers are required to declare any conflicts of interest, including:

• competition in the same research area;
• close personal relationships or scientific collaboration with the authors;
• recent co-authorship.

Requests to cite the reviewer’s own work for personal benefit and disrespectful or inappropriate personal remarks are unacceptable.

2. Confidentiality

Reviewers have to:

• not disclose the content of the manuscript or the review to third parties, except the journal editors;
• not use the information obtained for personal advantage or to the disadvantage of any individual.

3. Diligence

A reviewer who agrees to evaluate a manuscript must:

• have appropriate expertise in the relevant field;
• be transparent about their identity to the editorial office;
• complete the review within the agreed timeframe and according to the journal’s standards;
• carefully examine the manuscript, even if it has been previously reviewed by another journal;
• inform the editorial office about any suspected breaches of publication ethics (duplicate publication, data fabrication, unethical research design);
• provide constructive comments and recommendations in a respectful manner aimed at improving the work.

 

Proposed revisions should be relevant, feasible in terms of time and resources, and genuinely contribute to improving the quality of the research. The primary responsibility of the reviewer is to provide the editorial office with the necessary information for making an informed decision and to assist authors in enhancing the scientific value of the manuscript.

The most important ethical obligation of both reviewers and editors is to prevent the publication of unreliable or unsubstantiated results that could mislead future research.

All participants in the publishing process - editorial board members, authors, reviewers, publishers, and affiliated institutions - must adhere to high ethical standards, norms, and rules, and take measures to prevent violations.

 

PEER REVIEW POLICY

The journal uses a double-anonymized peer review model in accordance with international standards of scholarly peer review. This means that: reviewers do not know the identities of the authors; authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

Number of Reviews. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

Peer Review Procedure. The editorial history of a manuscript includes the following information: date of manuscript submission; date of the first editorial decision; number of peer review rounds; date of article acceptance.

Conflicts of Interest of Reviewers. A reviewer must decline the review if there is a potential conflict of interest, including: joint publications with the authors; employment or administrative subordination; personal or professional conflicts.