The submitted text undergoes a preliminary review by the Editorial Board, and, in case of an initial positive assessment, is subject to peer review.

In order to determine the quality of the research and compliance with the journal standards, the text is blindly peer reviewed by one or more reviewers, taking into account the complexity and interdisciplinary nature of the work. The reviewer must have published a work in the relevant subfield or field within the last three years.

When selecting a reviewer, conflicts of interest must be excluded. During the review, the identity of the author and the reviewer(s) is unknown to each other. The reviewer is given the material and instructions for evaluating the text. His opinion (if any) on the necessity of appointing a co-reviewer is taken into account. The reviewer is informed that he may have to verify the validity of the corrections made by the author at various stages.

The evaluator is obliged to protect the confidentiality of the material transferred to him. He is also required to respect copyright. In addition, the evaluator has the copyright to the document he has prepared; however, he is obliged to protect the confidentiality of the author's identity when it becomes known to him after publication, with the consent of the journal, when sharing his evaluations with a third party.

The author, in turn, is not authorized, in the event of refusal to publish the material, to share the evaluation document with third parties without the consent of the evaluator.

 

The evaluator checks the validity of the submitted text with the following criteria:

• requirements specified in the authors' manual;
• compatibility with the academic style;
• reliability of factual data;
• logical soundness of the structure and consistency of arguments;
• Content - the degree of the author's comprehension of the material, the adequacy of the sources, the relevance of the methodology, and the novelty component in the conclusion.

The evaluator may have the following type of conclusion:

• The work is accepted for publication;
• The work is accepted for publication with the need for minor changes;
• The work is accepted for publication with the need for significant revision;
• The work is rejected.

In case of a positive assessment, the evaluator's comments (if any) are sent to the author for making changes to the text within the period specified by the editor. Inadequate response to the request for changes is the basis for refusing to publish the paper.

In the event of a refusal to publish, the text is returned to the author, and the journal shall protect the confidentiality of the material and data that became available to it to conduct the referencing process.

Communication with the author is established via e-mail.