The peer review procedure is intended to ensure a thorough selection of submitted manuscripts for publication.

A manuscript submitted by the author is, within two weeks, checked for compliance with the Collection’s scope and formal requirements, including an analysis of the text for signs of plagiarism. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements are rejected. In the response letter, the Editorial Board informs the author(s) of receipt of the manuscript and whether it has been sent for peer review or declined from further consideration.

All research articles published in the Collection undergo double-blind peer review conducted by experts in the relevant field.

The Editorial Board seeks to prevent any conflict of interest between authors and reviewers.

Reviewers treat submitted manuscripts as the intellectual property of the authors and as confidential material, guaranteeing the author’s right to non-disclosure of the content prior to publication.

In their conclusions, reviewers are free from any pressure or influence from the Editorial Board.

Using the similarity report generated by the automated plagiarism detection system Strike-plagiarism, which is provided together with the anonymized manuscript and the review form, the reviewer determines whether improper borrowings are absent, confirms that the text presents original research, and that all ideas, results, and texts of other authors are properly cited.

The reviewer evaluates the research and theoretical level of the article, its relevance and practical significance, the completeness of the research, the logic of the argumentation, the validity of the results, and the soundness of the conclusions. Based on this evaluation, the reviewer decides whether the manuscript meets the established requirements, requires revision, may be accepted for publication, or should be rejected.

If the reviewer recommends revisions, the Editorial Board returns the manuscript to the author for improvement and then considers it again. The author is given no more than two weeks from the date of notification to revise the manuscript. The author may disagree with certain reviewer recommendations and has the right to provide reasoned objections. The decision on further consideration of the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

In the case of a negative review, the author has the right to review the detailed reasoning provided by the reviewer and, if there are objective grounds, to appeal the decision. Re-review by another expert (arbitration review) is applied if the author can demonstrate a factual error or bias on the part of the reviewer.

The Editorial Board does not engage in substantive discussion of the manuscript with the author. The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board of the Collection.

To avoid potential conflicts of interest, manuscripts submitted by members of the Editorial Board are handled with the full exclusion of the respective member from the decision-making process. When considering a manuscript submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, the process is managed by the Deputy Editor or, if necessary, by an invited guest editor. When considering a manuscript submitted by a member of the Editorial Board, the reviewer is assigned from among colleagues who have not co-authored publications or shared grants with the author within the last three years.

The overall timeline for the review process (initial screening – independent peer review – revision if necessary – final decision) is determined individually, depending on the scope and specifics of the submitted manuscript; however, the Editorial Board aims for the process not to exceed two months.

If the manuscript is returned for technical revision, the date of submission is considered to be the date of resubmission after revision.

The date of acceptance is the date on which the manuscript is approved after peer review.

The date of publication is the date on which the electronic version of the article is published on the Collection’s website and assigned a DOI.