ISSN: 3033-2885

Peer Review

Manuscripts should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief via email as a Microsoft Word attachment. Submissions undergo an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief to ensure alignment with the journal’s topics. Non-conforming manuscripts will be returned to the authors.
Following this, manuscripts fitting the journal’s scope are checked for plagiarism and improper AI use.
Manuscripts passing the initial check are reviewed by two independent peer reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors (double-blind review). Reviewers provide evaluations and recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief. If the reviewers’ opinions conflict, a third arbitrating reviewer is appointed. Based on all reviews, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision: accept, accept with revisions, or reject.
Accepted manuscripts require authors to submit a written statement confirming that all results are real and original, unmanipulated and unfalsified, and that the article has not been previously published or submitted elsewhere. Upon publication, copyright is transferred to the publisher, granting exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution.
The journal permits republishing of published articles in specialized online scientific communities, provided that the article and its bibliographic data are accurately reproduced.
Manuscripts without a signed author declaration will not be published.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

These guidelines are based on Elsevier’s policies and COPE recommendations.
Responsibilities of Editors 
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which submitted manuscripts will be published. Decisions are made without regard to authors’ gender, race, religion, ethnicity, citizenship, political views, or sexual orientation. Acceptance is based solely on scientific merit, originality, validity, clarity, and relevance. Rejection may occur in cases of defamation, copyright infringement, plagiarism, misuse of AI, or breach of academic ethics. 
Responsibilities of Reviewers 
Peer review assists editors in making publication decisions and helps authors improve their manuscripts. Reviewers must be qualified in the manuscript’s field and treat reviewed materials as confidential. Reviews should be objective, reasoned, and free of personal criticism. Reviewers must report any unethical practices and avoid conflicts of interest.
Responsibilities of Authors 
Authors are fully responsible for the content of their publication. Authorship should reflect significant contribution to the research. Fraudulent or fabricated data, plagiarism, and multiple submissions are strictly prohibited. Authors must disclose conflicts of interest and funding sources. Upon discovering major errors, authors must promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief and cooperate in corrections or retractions.
References 
– Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. 
– COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, WAME. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12 (2022) 
– European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, Revised Edition, 2018.