Stage 1: Initial Editorial and Ethical Screening (Desk Review)
Upon receipt of a manuscript, the Editorial Office verifies:
- its relevance to the journal’s scope;
- compliance with the Author Guidelines and the completeness of the submitted materials;
- the adequacy of manuscript anonymisation;
- the quality of the language.
Originality Screening (Plagiarism Detection): Before being sent for peer review, every manuscript undergoes an originality check using plagiarism detection software (e.g. iThenticate, Turnitin, or Crossref Similarity Check). If plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or any form of inappropriate text manipulation is suspected, the manuscript will be rejected immediately.
If the manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements, the Editorial Office may reject it without external peer review (Desk Rejection).
Stage 2: Double-Blind Peer Review
Original Research Articles, Review Articles, and Scholarly Articles are subject to a Double-Blind Peer Review. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors.
- Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with recognised expertise in the relevant field, who are normally affiliated with institutions other than that of the author(s).
- If the reviewers’ recommendations differ substantially, the Editorial Office will appoint a third independent reviewer.
Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:
- originality and scholarly contribution to the field;
- methodological rigour and logical structure;
- quality of the argumentation and engagement with current scholarly literature and relevant sources;
- clarity and validity of the conclusions;
- compliance with ethical standards.
Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editor-in-Chief or the handling editor makes one of the following decisions:
- Accept as is
- Revisions required (minor revisions or major revisions)
- Reject
If revisions are requested, the author is required to submit a revised version of the manuscript together with a written response to the reviewers’ comments within the specified deadline.
Appeals Procedure
Authors have the right to submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief requesting reconsideration of a rejection decision if they believe that the editorial process involved a procedural error or an inappropriate scholarly assessment. After reviewing the appeal, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint a new independent reviewer or refer the matter to the Editorial Board for further consideration.
