Peer Review

6. Submission of Manuscripts, Plagiarism Screening and Peer Review

6.1. Following submission of an academic manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief shall assess its compliance with the formal admissibility requirements, citation standards, the Journal’s editorial policy, aims, and thematic scope (initial admissibility stage).

6.2. Where a manuscript contains technical deficiencies and does not comply with the standards established by these Regulations, the author shall be notified accordingly and granted a reasonable period, not exceeding 7 (seven) calendar days, to remedy such deficiencies.

6.3. The Turnitin report shall serve as an auxiliary tool. Compliance with academic integrity requirements shall be assessed on the basis of a substantive analysis of the manuscript. Where the manuscript is deemed admissible, the article shall be sent anonymously to at least 2 (two) reviewers, who shall review it within 10 (ten) calendar days. The principle of anonymity shall be maintained throughout the entire peer-review process and thereafter, including when reviewers’ reports or other related materials are disclosed or distributed.

6.4. Where necessary, including in the assessment of an interdisciplinary manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief shall be authorized to refer the manuscript to one or more additional reviewers possessing appropriate expertise in the relevant field. The review process shall be conducted in accordance with the Double-Blind Peer Review procedure.

6.5. A reviewer shall be selected on the basis of subject-matter expertise and may be a person possessing relevant practical and/or research experience or qualifications in the field to which the manuscript under review relates. Where the manuscript is interdisciplinary, reviewers possessing expertise in the relevant different fields may be selected for its evaluation.

6.6. Where a reviewer is unable to assess the scholarly manuscript within the prescribed period or lacks the appropriate subject-matter expertise, the reviewer shall notify the Editor-in-Chief thereof in writing within a reasonable period.

6.7. Reviewers shall be guided by the established manuscript assessment criteria and shall submit a written assessment report to the Editor-in-Chief using the Blind Peer Review Report Form (Annex No. 1), for the purpose of subsequently informing the author of any deficiencies requiring correction.

6.8. For the purpose of ensuring an effective peer-review process, a reviewer may seek specific guidance from the Editor-in-Chief. Such consultation shall not be regarded as a violation of the principles of independence or impartiality of the review.

6.9. Reviewers may issue one of the following recommendations:

6.9.1. The manuscript may be published in the scholarly journal following minor technical and substantive editing;

6.9.2. The manuscript requires substantial revision prior to publication;

6.9.3. The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

6.10. A reviewer’s recommendation that deficiencies be remedied shall be accompanied by the relevant comments and explanations concerning the manuscript under review.

6.11. Where reviewers recommend that deficiencies in the manuscript be remedied prior to publication, the Editor-in-Chief shall communicate with the author and coordinate the process of making the required revisions. The Editor-in-Chief shall assess the extent to which the author has taken the reviewers’ recommendations into account.

6.12. Where a person involved in the Journal’s publishing activities submits a manuscript for publication, the process of reviewing the manuscript and making a decision on its publication shall be conducted without the participation of that person.

6.13. By decision of the Editor-in-Chief, in order to ensure compliance with the Journal’s publication schedule, a manuscript may be published in the subsequent issue where implementation of the reviewers’ recommendations requires a substantial period of time that may delay the timely publication of the Journal, or where there is another objective ground for publishing the manuscript in the subsequent issue.

6.14. Where publication of a manuscript is refused, the reviewers’ reports shall, upon the author’s request, be sent to the author subject to the preservation of reviewer anonymity.

6.15. Upon the author’s request, official confirmation of acceptance of the manuscript for publication may also be issued in the form of a certificate.