The Editorial Board of the scientific journal accepts original research articles in English or Ukrainian that have not been previously published elsewhere. Submitted manuscripts must not be under consideration by any other periodical. All articles must comply with the Journal’s Formatting Requirements.

The primary factors influencing the Editorial Board's decision to publish are the results of originality checks, the reliability of the research, the relevance of the topic, and its significance for researchers and readers. The Editorial Board does not permit the publication of materials prohibited by Ukrainian legislation or links to such resources. The Editorial Board informs the author regarding potential publication timelines and the specific issue in which the article may appear.

All articles undergo peer review by leading domestic and foreign experts prior to publication. Reviewers are not disclosed to authors, and authors remain anonymous to reviewers (double-blind review). Peer review serves two main functions to enhance the quality of scientific research:

1. To determine the reliability, significance, and originality of the article.
2. To suggest ways to improve the publication.

The review provides the fundamental contribution to the Board's editorial decisions. It assists the Editor-in-Chief in making informed choices and, through editorial communication, may also help the author refine their manuscript.

The Editorial Board makes the final decision on publication solely based on the reviewers' conclusions. Provided that the submitted materials align with the goals, objectives, and editorial policy of the journal, articles are published primarily in the author's edition; otherwise, the material is rejected. The Editorial Board may not necessarily share the authors' opinions and bears no responsibility for the professional content, methodological correctness, or the accuracy of internet links and literary sources cited within the text.

Reviewer selection criteria

• Possession of a Ph. D. or DSс (Doctor of Sciences) degree.
• Documented publications related to the subject matter of the reviewed article.
• Presence of publications in journals indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science.
• Absence of a conflict of interest with the author(s).
• No more than one reviewer from the author's home institution.
• Involvement of international reviewers (where possible).
• The reviewer must not have been a co-author of the candidate during the last 3 years.

Core principles for reviewers

Promptness. Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research or knows they cannot provide a timely report must immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief to ensure an alternative review can be arranged.

Confidentiality. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others, except as authorised by the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers must not attempt to contact potential authors of the articles assigned to them.

Standards of objectivity. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers must express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Citation integrity. Reviewers should alert the Editor to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge. Reviewers must not use any part of the reviewed material in their own research without proper citation.

Conflict of interest. Reviewers must decline to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the submission.

The review process

Stage 1. Preliminary review (up to 7 days).

• Checking alignment with the journal’s scope.
• Plagiarism check (using StrikePlagiarism).
• Verification of compliance with formatting requirements.
• Decision: proceed to peer review or reject.

Stage 2. Appointment of reviewers (2-3 days).

Two independent reviewers are appointed by the Executive Secretary of the Editorial Board. Selection is based on qualifications and publication history. An anonymised version of the article is provided for review.

Stage 3. Peer review (2-4 weeks).

Reviewers evaluate:

• Topic relevance and scientific novelty.
• Alignment of the title with the content.
• Quality of the literature review and methodology.
• Reliability of results and validity of conclusions.
• Language and formatting quality.

Stage 4. Editorial Board Decision.

Reviews must be objective and evidence-based.

Possible recommendations:

• Publish as submitted (no changes).
• Accept with minor editorial revisions.
• Return to the author for major revision (requires re-review after updates).
• Reject without further consideration.

In case of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer is appointed or the Editorial Board makes the final call.

Stage 5. Author revision.

• Author receives anonymous feedback.
• Prepares a revised version.
• Submits a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments.

Stage 6. Final decision.

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on the reviewers' recommendations.

Forms of documentation:

• Reviews are prepared in the standard journal format.
• All reviews are stored in the editorial archive for 3 years.
• Upon request from the Ministry of Education and Science or other authorised bodies, reviews are provided.

Timelines:

• General timeline: from submission to first final decision: 4-6 weeks.
• Revision window: 14 days.
• Re-review period: 10-14 days.

Appeal: The author has the right to appeal a rejection within 10 days. The appeal is reviewed by an independent member of the Editorial Board.

Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes literary editing, abstract editing (English), and final proofreading. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject a manuscript at this stage if improper literary edits are found or if the author makes significant unauthorised changes to the content.