Peer Review Procedure
Scholarly articles submitted to the Editorial Office of the Journal undergo several stages of review.
Compliance with formal requirements. The author’s manuscript is checked for compliance with the requirements set out in the Guidelines for Authors. In case of non-compliance (for example, missing required structural elements of the article, incorrect formatting of the Bibliography and References lists), the author will be asked to make the necessary corrections.
Assessment of the journal scope and originality check. The manuscript is evaluated for its relevance to the scientific profile of the Journal and is also subject to a similarity check using specialized plagiarism-detection software. Only manuscripts in which the similarity index does not exceed 15% are admitted to the next stage of review; the Editorial Board takes into account the nature of overlaps, the correctness of citations, and the specific features of research in the humanities.
If this requirement is not met, the manuscript may be rejected or returned to the author for revision.
Independent anonymous peer review. Manuscripts admitted to this stage undergo double-blind peer review, which ensures objectivity of evaluation. Reviews are carried out by invited external experts or members of the Editorial Board.
The reviewer receives an anonymized manuscript and, after evaluation, completes a standard review form. The review period should not exceed two weeks.
Communication between the author and the reviewer is conducted exclusively through the Editorial Office, which forwards the reviewer’s comments to the author. Direct contact between the author and the reviewer is possible only by mutual consent.
The author is expected to take the reviewer’s comments into account, revise the manuscript in accordance with the recommendations, or provide a reasoned response to them and submit the revised version to the Editorial Office.
The revision period should not exceed seven days from the moment the reviewer’s report is received. If the author is unable to make corrections within this period, the article may be scheduled for publication in the next issue of the Journal.
If the author fundamentally disagrees with the reviewer’s comments, the author has the right to withdraw the manuscript.
Final decision. The final decision on acceptance for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief or by the member(s) of the Editorial Board to whom this function has been delegated.
Criteria for selecting reviewers. The Editorial Office invites reviewers on the basis of their academic qualifications, professional competence, and research experience in the relevant field of study. The main criteria include an academic degree or significant scholarly achievements related to the subject of the manuscript, publications in national or international academic journals, and experience in reviewing scholarly works.
A reviewer must have no conflict of interest with respect to the authors or the content of the submitted manuscript and is required to adhere to the principles of academic integrity, objectivity, and impartiality during the review process.
