All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo preliminary editorial screening for compliance with the journal scope, formatting requirements, completeness of metadata, required manuscript sections, accuracy of author information and publication ethics.
Before peer review, manuscripts are checked for originality using StrikePlagiarism (https://strikeplagiarism.com/) under the valid agreement and in accordance with the Anti-Plagiarism Policy.
Manuscripts that meet the formal requirements are sent for double-blind peer review: author identities are not disclosed to reviewers and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. The review is conducted by at least two independent specialists in the subject area of the manuscript with appropriate scholarly qualifications and research experience.
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and inform the editorial office of any potential conflict of interest before accepting the review. Reviewers must not use manuscript materials for personal, scholarly, commercial or other purposes before publication.
When evaluating a manuscript, reviewers consider its relevance to the journal scope, scientific novelty and relevance, validity of the methodology, reliability and reproducibility of results, quality of analysis and discussion, completeness of conclusions, accuracy of citation, quality of tables, figures and schemes, and compliance with research and publication ethics.
If there are signs of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, unreliable data, image manipulation, improper citation, undisclosed use of generative artificial intelligence or other publication ethics violations, the reviewer should indicate this in the review, and the editorial office will consider the matter in accordance with the journal's editorial policy.
Based on the review, the reviewer provides a reasoned conclusion with one of the following recommendations: accept for publication; accept after revision; send for re-review after major revision; reject.
If comments are provided, the editorial office sends anonymized reviewers' comments to the corresponding author for response and revision. After receiving the revised version, the editorial office checks the completeness of the authors' response and, when necessary, sends the manuscript for re-review.
If reviewers' conclusions differ substantially, the editorial office may appoint an additional reviewer or refer the manuscript to a member of the editorial board in the relevant field. The final decision to accept, request revision or reject the manuscript is made by the journal editorial office, taking into account the reviewers' conclusions, journal scope, scientific quality and publication ethics requirements.
A manuscript that receives two negative reviews or does not meet the journal requirements after revision is not accepted for publication. The author receives an editorial decision and, where possible, anonymized reviewer comments.