All submissions are initially assessed by the editorial office to determine their suitability for the journal’s scope, ethical standards, and basic methodological quality. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.

Manuscripts considered suitable for review are evaluated by a minimum of two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise.

• Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.
• Reviewers are selected based on expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.
• Reviewers are asked to assess scientific validity, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and clarity of presentation.

The final decision (acceptance, revision, or rejection) is made by the editors, based on the reviewers’ reports and the journal’s editorial standards. Reviewers provide recommendations, but responsibility for editorial decisions rests solely with the editors.

Editors do not participate in the handling or decision-making of manuscripts when:

• they are an author or co-author of the submission;
• the manuscript is authored by a family member or close colleague;
• the content relates to products, services, or interests in which the editor has a personal or financial stake.

In such cases, the manuscript is handled by another editor, and the peer-review process is conducted independently of the conflicted editor and their research group.

Authors may submit one formal appeal against an editorial decision. Appeals must be based on substantive grounds (e.g. factual errors or procedural issues) and are evaluated by a senior editor not involved in the original decision.
The decision following an appeal is final.

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not disclose or use unpublished material for personal advantage.

Last updated: 28.12.2025