When a manuscript is submitted to the editorial office, it is carefully evaluated to ensure it meets our publication ethics, aligns with the journal’s profile, and follows the required submission format. This initial review process is designed to support authors in presenting their work effectively and contributes positively to the overall quality of publications.

Before submitting your manuscript to the editorial office, ensure that you have thoroughly read and can comply with our publication ethics, as well as the manuscript submission and author guidelines.

If a manuscript does not meet the requirements set by the journal, it may be rejected for consideration. The author will be notified of this decision. The editorial office does not engage in discussions with the author regarding disagreements about the decision.

Manuscripts that have completed the initial review process are subject to mandatory double-blind peer review. Typically, two reviewers are assigned, and in the case of a controversy, a third reviewer may be added.

All reviewers are acknowledged specialists in peer-reviewed work and possess relevant publications.

Translations of published articles, book reviews, reviews of scientific events, obituaries, archival materials, letters to the editorial office, and similar items do not undergo a peer-review process. The editorial office, in conjunction with the editorial board, makes the decision regarding their publication.

The manuscript review process depends on the workload of the editorial office and the availability of reviewers.

Based on the review results, the editorial office can make one of the following decisions:

1. Accept for publication in its current form.
2. Accept for publication with minor revisions according to the reviewers' and/or editorial comments.
3. Major revision required according to the reviewers' and/or editorial comments, followed by re-review.
4. Reject, with the possibility of resubmission.
5. Reject, with no possibility of resubmission.

When reviews include suggestions for revision of the manuscript, these are sent to the author(s) to undertake for minor or major revision.

If the Editorial Office's decision is favorable (items 1-3), the author should submit the following files to us after revising the manuscript:

1. A final version of the revised manuscript.
2. A version of the revised manuscript with the possibility to track the corrections.
3. Responses to the reviewers' comments presented in a table or list format, detailing how each comment was addressed or providing justification for why it could not be fulfilled.
4. A file containing data for figures, along with the figures themselves, preferably in Excel format or another format agreed upon with the Editorial Board.

The manuscript revision deadline can be extended by contacting the editorial office's secretary.

The manuscript may be sent for a re- review if the previous reviewer has requested it, or to a different reviewer if the manuscript is resubmitted.

If a manuscript receives two negative reviews or contradictory reviews, the Editorial Office will undertake an assessment of the manuscript. The manuscript may be sent for additional review, returned to the author(s) for revisions, or rejected.

A manuscript may be rejected for several reasons: if it receives two negative reviews, if the author does not respond to the reviews within a month of receiving them, or if the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board of the journal decides to reject it.

If a manuscript is rejected, an explanation will be provided to the authors.

The Editorial Board can share reviews upon request.

All editorial and proofreading revisions are coordinated with authors via the email provided during manuscript submission.

Reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years.

The list of regularly cooperating reviewers is updated annually and posted on the website.