The journal's editorial board employs a double-blind review process for manuscripts, whereby neither the author nor the reviewer is informed of the other's identity.

We recommend that all reviewers familiarise themselves with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and adhere to them.

The journal's review procedure includes the following stages:

1. Initial review. The editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief or executive secretary will evaluate each manuscript to determine whether it meets the journal's criteria in terms of its relevance to the subject area and the style of the article. They will also check the manuscript for plagiarism using special software. If the editor-in-chief has a conflict of interest (e.g. if they are the author or co-author of the article or have family or professional ties with the authors), the initial review will be conducted by their deputy, the executive secretary or a member of the editorial board who does not have a conflict of interest.

Manuscripts that do not pass the initial review are rejected, and the author is notified of the decision. If the manuscript meets the journal's requirements, it is sent for a double-blind review.

2. Double-blind review. Manuscripts that have successfully passed the initial review are sent by the editorial office via email for double-blind review by scientists whose specialisation is close to the topic of the article. All personal data relating to the authors is removed from the texts of the articles beforehand.

Each article is reviewed by at least two active scientists, and more if necessary. Reviewers are usually external, although members of the Editorial Board may be involved. At least one reviewer must not be a member of the Editorial Board. Reviewers are selected based on their experience in a specific field.

Reviewers prepare a review using a special form. They submit their review to the Editorial Board within 20 days of receiving the article electronically. If circumstances cause a delay to the submission of a review, the reviewer must notify the Editorial Board by email. Reviewers should contact the Journal Editorial Board with any questions, requests or comments.

Based on the results of the review, the manuscript may be recommended for:

• publication in the author's version, i.e. without any changes;
• for publication after minor changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers' comments;
• to be sent for re-review after significant revision by the author(s);
• to be rejected for publication without further consideration.

Following the review process, the editor-in-chief or their deputy will review the reviewers' reports. In some cases, for example if the reviews differ significantly, an additional reviewer may be involved to obtain an additional opinion before a decision is made.

The list of external reviewers is published in the last issue of the journal at the end of each year.

3. Decision-making. Based on the review reports, the editor-in-chief or their deputy makes a decision to accept, revise or reject the article manuscript and informs the authors of the decision. Depending on the decision, the authors may be provided with the reviewers' comments. If the manuscript is refused without further consideration, the authors are not provided with comments. If the reviewers suggest changes (corrections or additions), the authors must take these into account.

If the decision is made to 'send for re-review', the manuscript must be revised and sent for a second round of 'blind' review. Revisions do not guarantee acceptance of the article. If the reviewers consider the changes to be unsatisfactory, the article will be rejected.

If only minor changes are proposed, the re-review can be carried out by the editor-in-chief.

If the author objects to the results of the review, providing substantiated arguments and explanations, the editor-in-chief and/or deputy editor-in-chief will review the objections and notify the author of the result.

The editor-in-chief makes the final decision on publication of the manuscript in the journal, taking into account all recommendations, arguments, and compliance with the journal's requirements. The editor-in-chief does not participate in decision-making regarding articles in which they have a conflict of interest. Such articles undergo independent review, excluding the editor-in-chief, and the deputy editor-in-chief makes the final decision.

The typical peer review period is 3–4 weeks.

The average time to the first decision is 4–8 weeks.

This timeframe may be extended depending on how long it takes the authors to finalise the article following the reviewers' comments.