All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening to assess compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, and basic quality standards. Manuscripts that meet these criteria are assigned a confidential identification code to ensure anonymity throughout the review process.

The journal applies a double-blind peer review procedure, in which:

• reviewers do not know the identity of the authors;
• authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

The review process consists of:

• Internal review— conducted by members of the Editorial Board in the relevant field;
• External review— conducted by independent experts with relevant academic expertise.

Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following criteria:

• Relevance and significance of the research topic;
• Consistency between the abstract, introduction, conclusions, and the main body of the manuscript;
• Logical structure and clarity of presentation;
• Appropriateness and justification of the research methodology;
• Reliability of data and validity of conclusions;
• Use of up-to-date national and international scholarly sources;
• Scientific contribution and originality of the research.

All reviews must be substantiated, objective, and constructive, providing reasoned comments on the quality of the manuscript.

The average time to first decision is 4–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability.

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editorial Board may issue one of the following decisions:

• Accept without revisions;
• Accept with minor revisions;
• Request major revisions and resubmission;
•  

Authors are given the opportunity to revise their manuscript in response to reviewer comments. If an author disagrees with a reviewer’s assessment, a reasoned appeal may be submitted to the Editorial Board. Appeals are considered by an independent editor.

Editors who are authors or co-authors of a submitted manuscript do not participate in the review or decision-making process regarding that manuscript.