1.1. All submitted papers are subject to the blind peer-review process by (two) international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
1.2. The factors that are taken into account in a review paper are its relevance to the journal scope, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language, along with an obligatory requirement to be not published nowhere earlier and being not on a current consideration for publication elsewhere.
1.3. The possible decisions include acceptance without remarks/corrections, acceptance with minor/major revisions, or rejection.
1.4. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
1.5. Article may be rejected without review if it is not an original research or is not qualified by the factor(s) indicated in pt. 1.2.
1.6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
1.7. The article acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism (self-plagiarism). The papers are routinely scanned for plagiarism using the free online plagiarism checker tools (https://www.plag.com.ua, https://smallseotools.com/plagiarism-checker).
1.8. When a conflict of interests arising, all the participants of reviewing process should inform the editorial board. All the contentions questions are considered in the board meeting.
1.9. The accepted papers are allocated (in open access) at the journal site (copyrights reserved).
2.1. The reviewers evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.2. The staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.3. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
2.4. Peer review assists the publisher in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the experts from the scientific board and the author may assist the author in improving the paper.
2.5. Manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents and are reviewed by anonymous staff.
2.6. A reviewer should also call to the publisher’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.1. Authors of contributions and studies research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
3.2. Authors must provide reliable results of the review and analysis of studies. Knowingly false or falsified statements and results are unacceptable.
3.3. A paper should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
3.4. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely research regular or review work. Using textual or graphical (figures, photos) data from other works, authors must obligatory cite (in the references) relevant publications or/and get a written permission from their authors.
3.5. The submission of the manuscript, materials of which have been published somewhere earlier or are being considered for publication elsewhere, constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
3.6. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, and/or interpretation of the reported study.
3.7. Acknowledgement(s) and source(s) of financial support(s) for the reported results are recommended to be specified.