Only scientific articles prepared in accordance with the Submission Guidelines are accepted for review.

The review process is double-blind (anonymous for both reviewers and authors) and is conducted by two independent reviewers. The journal ensures the objectivity of the reviewers’ conclusions.

Reviewers are required to adhere to the core norms of publication ethics, specifically the principles of copyright and confidentiality: they may not use the results of the reviewed work prior to its publication. Reviewers must not have any conflicts of interest.

The reviewers are leading experts from Bohdan Khmelnytsky National University of Cherkasy, as well as Ukrainian and international educational and/or scientific institutions specializing in the subject matter of the submitted articles. Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief.

Review timeframe: within one month.

Retention period for reviews: three years.

The review procedure consists of three stages:

1. Reviewers receive the manuscript text without any mention of authorship.

2. Reviewers complete a standardized Review Form, which involves evaluating the manuscript according to the following criteria:

– relevance of the subject matter to the journal’s scope;

– compliance of the article’s structure with requirements;

– originality and scientific novelty of the study;

– comprehensiveness of the topic coverage, logical flow, and consistency of the presentation;

– validity of the conclusions;

– correctness and quality of the abstract;

– adherence to academic writing standards;

– accuracy of citations and references;

– relevance of the bibliography and compliance with formatting requirements.

The names of the Reviewers are not disclosed to the Authors, and the names of the Authors are not disclosed to the Reviewers. Interaction between Reviewers and Authors is permitted only through the Executive Secretary.

Reviewers may:

– recommend accepting the article for publication without revisions;

– recommend accepting the article for publication after addressing the reviewer’s comments;

– recommend accepting the article for publication after major revision;

– recommend resubmission for a second round of review after significant changes have been made;

– reject the article (the author may resubmit the revised material; resubmission is not permitted if the material has fundamental flaws).

3. Finalization: The reviewer sends a signed scan of the completed review to the Executive Secretary's email address.

Articles by Editorial Board members undergo the standard external independent review process; however, board members do not participate in the evaluation or decision-making regarding their own manuscripts.

The Editorial Office provides authors with anonymized copies of the reviews and informs them of the decision. The final decision regarding the article is made at a meeting of the Editorial Board, taking the received feedback into account.

Following a recommendation for publication, the editorial office handles the article according to the technical workflow for issue preparation. The editorial decision is sent to the author(s). Articles requiring revision are returned to the author(s). The revised version is sent for re-review. In the event of a second negative review, the article is rejected.

Primary Reasons for Rejection:

– violation of the journal's Ethical Policy;

– non-compliance with submission requirements;

– plagiarism (or self-plagiarism);

– the article’s topic does not align with the journal’s profile;

– the title does not correspond to the content;

– inaccuracy of facts, statistics, proper names, quotes, references, or translation;

– low scientific quality: lack of relevance in the bibliography, insufficient evidentiary base for scientific results, lack of logic or consistency, unsubstantiated conclusions, or failure to meet academic style standards.