Information for Authors

The primary basis for evaluating a submitted work is editorial peer review conducted by at least one independent reviewer. Every publication undergoes this review process.

The Editorial Board may decide not to accept a manuscript for review and publication if there are justified concerns regarding the scholarly quality, academic integrity, or violations of publication ethics.

Works submitted either by the author or the editor of a collective volume are reviewed by experts in the relevant discipline, who are not affiliated with the institution employing the author or editor. Reviewers must be free of any potential conflict of interest or bias.

Reviewers are selected by the Editorial Board. Their identities remain confidential during the review process. Reviewer names may be disclosed after the review is complete, but only with the reviewer’s consent.

Once the review is received, it is forwarded to the author or editor along with a preliminary decision: acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.
The author/editor must respond thoroughly to the review, submitting a revised version along with a point-by-point reply addressing all reviewer comments. If any suggestions are not incorporated, the author must justify the reasons.

Based on this response, the Editorial Board makes a final decision to:

1. accept the manuscript for publication;
2. reject the manuscript, with written justification;
3. request a second round of review.

A manuscript containing part or all of a defended doctoral dissertation may be published only under the name of the dissertation’s author, either as a monograph or a chapter in an edited volume.