Peer Review
Download Peer Review Process
Introduction and general principlesThe journal applies a rigorous peer review process as a fundamental mechanism for ensuring the quality of scientific publications. Peer review represents a systematic evaluation of manuscripts by independent experts in the relevant scientific field, aimed at verifying methodological correctness, originality, scientific contribution, and ethical compliance of submitted papers.The peer review process in our journal is aligned with the highest international standards of academic publishing, including the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), as well as criteria prescribed by the Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB) for the evaluation of scientific journals. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are subject to mandatory peer review before publication, except for editorials, letters to the editor, and similar short forms that are subject exclusively to editorial evaluation.Review modelThe journal applies a double-blind peer review model, which means that the identity of authors remains unknown to reviewers, while the identity of reviewers remains unknown to authors throughout the entire evaluation process. This model was chosen to minimize bias and eliminate the influence of authors' reputation, their institutional affiliation, geographic origin, or previous publications on the objectivity of evaluation. In this way, the focus of the review remains exclusively on scientific value, methodological rigor, and originality of contribution, while simultaneously ensuring the protection of the integrity of the entire process through the prevention of potential conflicts of interest.Authors are required to remove all information that could reveal their identity when submitting manuscripts. This includes names and affiliations from the manuscript text, acknowledgments with identifying information, references to their own previous works in first person, as well as metadata in electronic documents. The editorial board checks the anonymization of each manuscript before sending it to reviewers and reserves the right to return the manuscript to authors for revision if anonymization has not been adequately implemented.Stages of the peer review processUpon receipt of the manuscript through the electronic manuscript management system, the editorial board conducts an initial administrative review that includes verification of submission completeness, compliance with the journal's technical requirements, presence of all mandatory elements, correctness of anonymization, and confirmation that the manuscript has not been simultaneously submitted to another journal. This phase typically lasts three to five working days. After the administrative review, the editor-in-chief or assigned section editor conducts a preliminary editorial evaluation (desk review). In this phase, the alignment of the manuscript with the journal's aims and scope, fundamental scientific validity, originality, academic significance, and linguistic acceptability are assessed. Manuscripts that do not meet basic criteria may be rejected without external review, with a detailed explanation of the decision provided to the authors. The expected duration of this phase is seven to fourteen working days. Before being sent to external reviewers, a mandatory originality check is conducted using specialized plagiarism detection software. The manuscript text is compared against a database of over eighty million academic publications and internet sources. The similarity index itself does not automatically constitute grounds for rejection; rather, each case is individually evaluated taking into account the context of identified matches. Legitimate citations, bibliographic data, and standard methodological terminology are not considered plagiarism. Simultaneously, the presence of a conflict of interest statement is verified, as well as evidence of ethical approval for research involving humans or animals, and compliance with principles of responsible research conduct. The editor then conducts a careful selection of reviewers applying strict criteria of qualification and independence. Reviewers must possess demonstrated expertise in the relevant scientific field confirmed by publications in indexed journals, an active research career, and academic affiliation with a recognized institution. At the same time, reviewers must not have co-authorships with manuscript authors in the last five years, institutional connections, mentoring relationships, or any conflict of interest. The journal strives for geographic and institutional diversification of engaged reviewers. A minimum of two independent reviewers are engaged for each manuscript, and in the case of disparate assessments, a third reviewer may be engaged. Upon accepting the invitation to review, reviewers gain access to the anonymized manuscript with a deadline of fourteen to twenty-one days to submit their review. Reviewers evaluate the originality and scientific contribution of the work, methodological rigor including adequacy of research design and validity of statistical analysis, quality of presentation, relevance and currency of cited literature, as well as ethical compliance. Reviewers submit a structured report with confidential comments to the editor and constructive comments to the authors, and recommend one of the following decisions: acceptance without changes, acceptance with minor revisions, return for major revisions, rejection with the possibility of resubmission, or final rejection. Upon receipt of all reviewer reports, the editor analyzes the submitted evaluations and makes an editorial decision. The editor is not obligated to follow reviewers' recommendations but uses professional judgment taking into account the consistency and divergence of assessments, validity of reviewers' comments, journal priorities, and the broader context of the scientific field. In case of significantly different assessments, the editor may request additional clarification, engage a third reviewer, or consult members of the editorial board. Authors receive a formal notification containing a clear decision, anonymized reviewer reports, any additional editor comments, and precise instructions for further action. If a decision to return the manuscript for revision is made, authors submit a revised version within the prescribed deadline along with a detailed response to reviewers' comments in which each comment is individually addressed. All changes must be clearly marked in the revised version of the manuscript. The revised version may be accepted by the editor without further external review in case of minor revisions, or sent to reviewers for verification of implemented changes. The revision process may be repeated multiple times until the manuscript reaches a satisfactory level of quality. TimeframeThe journal strives for efficient conduct of the peer review process while maintaining high standards of evaluation quality. The duration of the process from manuscript submission to final decision depends on a number of factors, including the complexity of the manuscript itself, specifics of the scientific field, availability of qualified reviewers with appropriate expertise, and the extent of any required revisions. The editorial board endeavors to conduct the process within a reasonable timeframe, with the priority always remaining thoroughness and objectivity of evaluation, rather than speed of decision-making. The journal commits to regularly informing authors about the status of their manuscript and providing transparent information about the progress of the peer review process. Ethical standards and conflict of interestReviewers are required to treat the manuscript as a confidential document, not share its content with third parties, and not use information from the manuscript for their own benefit before publication. They are expected to provide an unbiased and constructive review based exclusively on the scientific merits of the work, avoiding personal attacks and supporting all criticisms with concrete arguments. Reviewers report to the editor all identified conflicts of interest and decline to review if they are unable to provide an objective assessment. They are also required to report suspicions of plagiarism, data falsification, or other ethical violations. Editors make decisions exclusively based on the scientific value of the manuscript, not allowing commercial, personal, or political interests to influence their work. They recuse themselves from the decision-making process for manuscripts with which they have a conflict of interest and ensure confidentiality of reviewers' identities. Authors confirm that the submitted work is original, has not been previously published, and has not been simultaneously submitted to another journal. They are required to adequately cite all sources used, report potential conflicts of interest, and provide evidence of ethical approval for the research. A conflict of interest exists when the professional judgment of any participant in the process may be influenced by secondary interests such as financial interests, personal relationships, academic competition, or institutional ties. If plagiarism or suspected data manipulation is discovered during review or after publication, the journal proceeds in accordance with COPE guidelines, which includes notifying the authors, requesting clarification, potentially notifying the authors' institution, and retracting the published work with a clear explanation. Right to appeal and confidentialityAuthors have the right to appeal in case of disagreement with the editorial decision. The appeal is submitted in written form within thirty days of receiving the decision and must contain a clear explanation of the reasons for disagreement based on factual errors in the evaluation process, not on disagreement with reviewers' subjective assessment. The editor-in-chief considers the appeal and may consult members of the editorial board or request an additional review. The decision on the appeal is final. All data collected during the peer review process are treated as confidential. The identity of reviewers is not disclosed to authors, manuscripts are not shared with unauthorized persons, and electronic data are stored on protected servers in compliance with relevant personal data protection regulations. Generative artificial intelligence policyIn accordance with current academic publishing standards, the journal requires authors to explicitly disclose any use of generative artificial intelligence tools in writing the manuscript, either in the methodology section or in the acknowledgments. Artificial intelligence tools cannot be listed as authors of the work, and authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the content regardless of the use of such tools. Artificial intelligence must not be used to generate scientific data or research results. Reviewers must not enter manuscripts into publicly available artificial intelligence systems in order to preserve confidentiality and retain full responsibility for the content and quality of their reviews. This document was last updated: November 21, 2023.
The journal reserves the right to update this policy in accordance with the development of international academic publishing standards. All changes will be published on the journal's official website.Download Peer Review Process
The journal reserves the right to update this policy in accordance with the development of international academic publishing standards. All changes will be published on the journal's official website.Download Peer Review Process
