Peer Review

Each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief, covering compliance with formal submission requirements, citation standards, editorial policy, and the Journal's aims and scope. The assessment also includes a preliminary evaluation of scholarly novelty, relevance, methodological soundness and overall academic quality. This assessment does not replace independent peer review. Where technical deficiencies are identified, authors are given a reasonable period not exceeding seven calendar days to correct them.

Manuscripts are screened for academic integrity and textual similarity using Turnitin, with an indicative similarity threshold of 20%. Exceeding this threshold does not automatically result in rejection. Similarity reports are used as an auxiliary tool, while compliance with academic integrity requirements is determined through substantive assessment.

Manuscripts meeting the applicable requirements are anonymised and submitted to at least two reviewers under the Journal's double-blind peer-review procedure. Reviewers are required to submit their reports within four weeks, subject to an extension by the Editor-in-Chief where justified. This period applies only to the submission of reviewers' reports and does not constitute a deadline for the Journal's final decision. Anonymity is maintained throughout and after the review process.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise in the relevant field. Additional reviewers may be appointed where necessary, including for interdisciplinary research. Where the initial reviewers' recommendations on publication differ materially, a third reviewer is appointed. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to established assessment criteria and submit written reports using the Blind Peer Review Report Form.

Reviewers may issue one of the following recommendations:

1. Acceptance for publication without revisions;

2. Acceptance for publication subject to minor revisions;

3. Substantial revision and resubmission for further peer review;

4. Rejection of the manuscript.

Recommendations requiring revisions must be accompanied by relevant comments and explanations. The Editor-in-Chief communicates the requested changes to the author and assesses the extent to which the reviewers' recommendations have been addressed.

The final decision to publish or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviewers' reports, scholarly quality, academic integrity and compliance with the Journal's editorial policy. The decision and its principal grounds are communicated to the author in writing through OJS or email.

Where the Editor-in-Chief or another person involved in the publication process submits a manuscript or has a conflict of interest, that person is excluded from the relevant editorial procedures and decision-making. In cases involving the Editor-in-Chief, an independent Editorial Board member is designated to manage the editorial process and make the final publication decision.

Where substantial revisions may delay publication, or other objective circumstances justify postponement, the Editor-in-Chief may decide to consider the manuscript for publication in a subsequent issue.

If publication is refused, the author may request the reviewers' reports, subject to the preservation of reviewer anonymity. Authors may also request an official certificate confirming acceptance of their manuscript for publication.