The journal employs a double-blind peer review policy (authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities, and reviewers do not know the authors’ identities) conducted by two reviewers.  In cases where one review is positive and the other is negative, a third reviewer is appointed, and the editorial board makes a decision based on the conclusions of the three reviewers. Members of the Journals’s editorial board are involved in the review process, and external experts in the subject area of the submission are also invited. Reviewers evaluate the article in terms of the relevance of its subject matter, the novelty of the scientific results, their theoretical and practical significance, the appropriateness of the research methods used, the reliability of the experimental data obtained, the presence and validity of the conclusions, as well as the quality of the language, the style of presentation, and the formatting of the article.

 

Reviewers express their opinion regarding the publication of the article:

1. Accept as is;
2. Revise and resubmit after addressing the reviewers’ comments;
3. Reject or require additional factual material;
4. Reject due to the article’s incompatibility with the journal’s scope;
5. Reject due to the presentation of already known facts.

 

The review process takes one to one and a half months.

After receiving the reviews, authors are given two weeks to revise the article in accordance with the comments of the reviewers and the editorial board.