Peer Review Policy

REVIEW PROCEDURE AND ETHICS OF EXPERT EVALUATION

1. Review Procedure and Type

The journal employs a double-blind peer review process:

• The author does not know the identity of the reviewers.
• The reviewer does not know the identity of the author.
• All communication between the parties is conducted exclusively through the Editorial Board.

2. Reviewer Selection Criteria

The Editorial Board selects experts who meet the following requirements:

• Professional Competence: Possession of a scientific degree and a track record of publications in a field corresponding to the manuscript's topic.
• Academic Reputation: Adherence to ethical principles and a clean record regarding academic integrity.

3. Deadlines and Documentation

• Consent to Review: Within 1–2 days of receiving the request, the reviewer must confirm their availability or decline (due to time constraints or mismatch in expertise).
• Review Period: The standard timeframe for preparing a review is 14–21 calendar days.
• Documentation Form: Results are documented in a Review Form prescribed by the journal, which includes an analysis of scientific novelty, methodology, and the validity of conclusions.

4. Ethical Responsibilities of the Reviewer

Objectivity and Dialogue

• The evaluation must be impartial. Personal criticism is strictly prohibited; the critique should focus solely on the research results and not the author’s persona.
• The reviewer must provide clear arguments for their position, avoiding unsubstantiated claims.

Confidentiality and Ownership

• The manuscript is the intellectual property of the author and a confidential document.
• Prohibited: Discussing the work with third parties or using ideas and data from the unpublished manuscript for personal purposes or research.

5. Academic Integrity and Artificial Intelligence (AI)

AI Policy for Reviewers

• Strict Prohibition: Reviewers are strictly forbidden from uploading manuscripts into AI tools (ChatGPT, Claude, etc.). This constitutes a direct violation of confidentiality and copyright.
• Text Generation: The review must be the product of the expert's own intellectual labor, not a report generated by AI.

Author Compliance

• The reviewer must check the manuscript for undeclared AI usage. If unauthorized (hidden) use of AI by the author is detected, the reviewer should recommend rejection.

6. Ethical Control and Detection of Misconduct

The reviewer is obligated to immediately suspend work and notify the Editorial Board if any of the following are detected:

• Plagiarism: Reproduction of text or ideas without proper citation.
• Fabrication/Falsification: Inventing data or deliberately manipulating experimental results.
• Self-plagiarism: Duplication of the author's own previous results without proper justification.
• Ethical Violations: Improper treatment of human or animal subjects during research.

7. Decision Making

Based on the review, the Editorial Board makes one of the following decisions:

• Acceptance without revisions: The article is ready for publication.
• Revisions (minor/major): The author must revise the text according to the list of comments. A second round of review may follow.
• Rejection: The article does not meet the journal's requirements. The reviewer must provide a detailed justification for the rejection.

Note: The final decision regarding publication always rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board, taking into account the reviewers' recommendations.

Download review form