Ethical Principles of Reviewing

The reviewer is familiar with and respects the standards for the scientific review of texts submitted for publication in force at the journal's editorial office. They evaluate texts in accordance with their competencies, confidentially, and objectively. They only accept for review texts whose subject matter falls within their scope of expertise, and if a conflict of interest arises during the review process, they inform the editor-in-chief. They review the text independently and reliably, maintaining impartiality. They report any abuses observed in the reviewed text, including suspected plagiarism, to the editor-in-chief. By completing the form, the reviewer clearly and unambiguously evaluates the text, either submitting it for publication without corrections, submitting it for publication after corrections, or rejecting the text. They prepare the review in a timely manner, and if a delay is expected, they inform the editor-in-chief.

- Submitted scientific articles are initially reviewed by the Editorial Board.
- The editors code the texts (removing personal data of the author and reviewer, as well as other clues that could lead to the identification of the author or reviewer).
- The editors appoint at least two independent reviewers from outside the author's affiliated academic institution to review each publication (external reviews). The review is conducted in a double-blind format, meaning that the authors and reviewers are unaware of each other's identities.
- The editors select reviewers based on their knowledge and experience, as evidenced by their scientific achievements.
- Reviewers do not have to worry about the reactions of authors of negatively reviewed texts. The author's origin, gender, race, or professional status are also irrelevant to the review.
- Maintaining anonymity ensures impartiality. When selecting reviewers, the journal's editors ensure there are no conflicts of interest.
- The reviewer completes the appropriate review form (table). The reviewer may also provide other materials (e.g., written comments, a PDF article with comments, signed comments in a PDF file).
- Reviews should be objective and free from personal remarks.
- The reviewer primarily assesses the scientific value and reliability of the text under review. If unfair practices (plagiarism, falsification of research results, etc.) or unethical conduct are identified, the reviewer will decide not to accept the article for publication.
- The content of the review cannot be publicly disclosed. The reviewer's conclusions and comments are communicated to the authors via the editorial office (anonymously).
- The names of the reviewers are published in the journal's issue and posted on the journal's website.
- Reviewers cannot be members of the editorial team and cannot be associated with the author in any way.
- The review concludes with a clear recommendation to approve the article for publication (with or without corrections) or to reject it. If the article requires corrections, the author receives reviews containing the appropriate suggestions from the reviewers (via the editorial office).
- Additional external review is also provided for articles that receive two negative reviews.
- Articles that receive two clearly negative reviews are rejected.
- Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the editor-in-chief decides whether to publish the article. - The evaluation criteria considered during the review process are indicated in the review form.

The ethical principles are consistent with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. (link: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing)

The editor ensures the proper conduct of the publishing process, monitors it, and responds to abuses of integrity and scientific ethics, thereby also taking responsibility for the texts published in the journal. The editor selects reviewers based on transparency in the review process and the commitment to high substantive quality of published texts, preventing any conflict of interest in this regard. She reviews submitted texts for thematic and substantive merit, and also considers accepted ethical standards and good anti-plagiarism practices. She makes decisions regarding publication independently and impartially. She ensures confidentiality and objectivity at every stage of the review process. She systematically expands and updates her knowledge of ethical standards in the publishing process, procedures for detecting abuse, and counteracting unethical behavior in this area.