Peer Review Process

Pre-desk review

All manuscripts received by the editorial office are reviewed by the executive editor to ensure compliance with the purpose, subject matter, and policy of the Conference Proceedings. Manuscripts that do not align with the Conference Proceedings scope, editorial policy, or editorial standards are rejected without review. Manuscripts that fail to meet the structural and formatting requirements are returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. If the author does not respond to the editor's request within 30 days, the manuscript is considered withdrawn from review by the Conference Proceedings editorial office.

Manuscripts with a significant percentage of textual borrowings are returned to the authors for revision following a plagiarism check using Strike Plagiarism. If plagiarism is detected, the manuscript is returned to the author without the right to resubmit it.

After the pre-desk review, the author's manuscript is submitted for external peer review (expert assessment).

 

Peer-review (external reviewers)

All manuscripts submitted for publication are subject to a double-blind review by external reviewers who are experts in the scientific field of the specific article.

Members of the editorial board recommend as reviewers persons who are experts in the scientific field of a specific manuscript and have publications on manuscript topic. Members of the editorial board can also be reviewers.

Reviewers must adhere to international best peer review practices, including the Guidelines for Reviewers from the European Association of Science Editors, the Web of Science Academy.

Reviewers are required to notify the editor of any potential conflicts of interest as soon as possible. They must also adhere to the principle of confidentiality when handling the manuscript. This includes not using or reproducing the manuscript, in whole or in part, and not disclosing information about the editorial request for review.

When preparing the review, the reviewer must answer "yes," "no, needs minor revision", or "no, needs significant revision" to the following questions (as specified in the review platform OJS):

  1. Does the title of the manuscript correspond to its content and purpose?

  2. Does the abstract reflect the main content of the article and follow the IMRAD structure?

  3. Are the key ideas of the manuscript original, scientifically significant, and interesting to the readership?

  4. Are the main results of the article scientifically valid and well-founded?

  5. Do the article and its key sections comply with the IMRAD structure and the technical requirements of the Conference Proceedings?

  6. Are the tables and figures appropriate, justified, and in line with the Conference Proceedings requirements?

  7. Is the research methodology appropriate and adequately justified?

  8. Is the language of the article scientific, grammatically correct, and clear to the readership?

  9. Does the "Discussion" section demonstrate knowledge of the relevant literature and issues?

  10. Are the conclusions clear and well-reasoned?

If reviewers select "no, needs minor revision" or "no, needs significant revision" for any item, they must provide detailed comments and explain how the authors can improve the article.

The editors reserve the right not to share with the author any comments that contain subjective assessments, inappropriate language, or do not meet the established requirements and criteria mentioned above.

Editors mediate all discussions between authors and reviewers during the review process before publication. If an agreement cannot be reached, the editors may invite additional reviewers.

The responsible editor has the right to return a review for revision if the reviewer fails to comply with the guidelines outlined in the Recommendations for Reviewers or if the review contains ambiguous remarks. In cases of significant reviewer misconduct, the editor may exclude the reviewer from future review requests.

Reviewers do not conduct structural or stylistic editing of the manuscript but must report any editorial concerns in the appropriate section of the review.

Reviewers' decisions may include the following options:

  • Accept;

  • Accept after minor revisions (authors have 5 days to make minor changes according to reviewers' comments )

  • Accept after substantial revisions (authors have 2 weeks to substantially finalize the manuscript)

  • Reject with a proposal for resubmission (the manuscript is rejected, but the authors may resubmit it after substantial revisions if additional experiments or empirical studies are needed to support the conclusions)

  • Reject (the manuscript is rejected without the right to resubmit if it contains serious flaws and/or lacks original scientific contributions)

If the article is accepted pending revision, it is returned to the author(s) along with the reviewers' comments, suggestions for improvement, and any additional editorial recommendations.

The author must resubmit a revised version of the article with clear responses to the reviewers' comments, and all changes must be highlighted in the revised text.

The editor-in-chief evaluates the quality of the revisions or may forward the manuscript to the reviewers for re-evaluation. If a second round of review is conducted, reviewers will assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the initial feedback.

Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and thoroughly while maintaining a polite and constructive tone in their recommendations. Authors are expected to respond to all reviewer comments systematically, addressing each point.

A maximum of two rounds of manuscript review is permitted by the scientific collection.

While the editors consider the reviewers' comments, the final decision on the publication of the article rests with the editor-in-chief of the Conference Proceedings.

Author's appeal

The authors may appeal the refusal to publish. The procedure of such appeal is described in the “Complaints and Appeals”.