The peer review process

Review Procedure
All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board undergo a double-blind review process. The identities of the author and reviewers are kept confidential to ensure the objectivity of the evaluation.
Reviewers are selected by the editorial board from among specialists in the relevant field of psychological sciences who hold an academic degree and have a track record of publications on the subject of the submitted work.
The review process includes the following stages:
1. Initial editorial screening.
Checking that the article is relevant to the journal’s scope, complies with ethical standards, adheres to formatting guidelines, and is original.
2. Appointment of reviewers
At least two independent experts receive the manuscript for evaluation. Reviewers must 
3. Expert evaluation
Reviewers analyse:
• scientific novelty
• theoretical and practical significance of the results
• correctness of methodology and statistical analysis
• logical presentation and compliance with academic standards
4. Preparation of conclusions
Reviewers provide substantiated recommendations:
• accept for publication
• accept with revisions
• send for re-review
• reject
5. Editorial decision
The editorial board makes a decision, taking into account the reviewers’ comments and the quality of the author’s revisions.
6. Feedback to the author
The author receives anonymous comments and recommendations for potential improvements to the article.
Requirements for reviewers
Highly qualified specialists in the field of psychological sciences who meet the following criteria are invited to review:
1. Academic competence.
The reviewer must hold an academic degree and have proven expertise in the subject area of the article: publications in specialist journals, participation in research projects, and membership of professional communities.
2. Experience in research activities.
Preference is given to experts with experience in peer review, editorial work or research management.
3. Academic integrity.
The reviewer adheres to ethical principles, does not tolerate plagiarism, bias or conflicts of interest, and does not use manuscript materials for personal gain.
4. Objectivity and impartiality.
The evaluation of the work is based on its scientific quality, regardless of personal or institutional ties with the authors.
5. Confidentiality.
Information contained in the manuscript is not disclosed or used until the time of official publication.
6. Constructive feedback.
Comments must be clear, well-reasoned, aimed at improving the work, and free from offensive language.
7. Timeliness.
The review is submitted within the agreed timeframe, as agreed with the editorial board, to ensure a timely editorial decision.