Peer Review Process

Manuscripts are first checked by the editor-in-chief, who evaluates the submitted materials and decides whether they are suitable for the next stage of the review process based on relevance to the journal's theme, publishing standards, and the interest they pose to the scientific community.

Submissions are checked for plagiarism using the "TURNITIN and StrikePlagiarism" text uniqueness verification system.

The editorial board assigns two independent experts according to the research profile to review the manuscript. Reviewers evaluate the article within four weeks. Both editorial board members and external highly qualified specialists with deep professional knowledge and experience in a specific scientific field can act as reviewers. Relevant experts from the scientific community may be contacted for additional reviews or recommendations.

The editorial office sends the results and suggestions of reviewers to the author. The author is asked to process and resubmit the submission to the editorial office.

The final decision on publication timing or rejection of the submission is made by the editorial board based on the reviewers' conclusions. The editorial board's decision is sent to the author in a written notification.

The editorial board reserves the right to reject an article for the following reasons: 

a) lack of scientific novelty; 

b) non-compliance with the journal's themes (the journal does not print articles on politics, religion, interethnic relations, as well as tourism, applied issues of economic activity);

c) non-compliance with the norms of Ukrainian, German or English language; 

d) non-compliance with the requirements for article formatting and bibliography.

Guidelines for reviewers

The review of a scientific manuscript involves scientific, rational, and justified criticism, aimed at providing an objective assessment and a balanced decision on the publication of the manuscript. The reviewer should be demanding of the material submitted for review, as well as of themselves. If during the review process, the reviewer realizes that their qualifications are insufficient for a full review because the manuscript is highly specialized, goes beyond the reviewer's competence, contains data to which the reviewer does not have access, etc., the reviewer should inform the editor and, if possible, recommend another specialist in the field.
If the reviewer detects plagiarism or other types of academic dishonesty in the provided manuscript, they should inform the editor and present materials that confirm the plagiarism or other found manifestations of academic dishonesty.
When reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer should pay attention to the following characteristics:
Is the manuscript sufficiently unique and interesting for publication?
Does the manuscript correspond to the general theme of the journal?
Does the manuscript fall under the general standards adhered to by the journal?
Does the stated title correspond to the text of the manuscript?
Is the research described in the manuscript based on scientific method?
Does the manuscript contain scientific results?
Is the manuscript logically structured?
Are the research conclusions relevant to the stated goal and have they not already been obtained in other scientific studies?
The reviewer's decision should be qualified under one of three points:
(1) accept without changes
(2) accept with changes (justify in comments)
(3) reject (justify in comments)
The reviewer's comments should be formulated clearly and understandably. It is important to indicate whether a given comment is the reviewer's own point of view or is supported by scientific research, facts, or other data