Guidelines for peer reviewers

1. Peer review should be conducted in accordance with the principles of objectivity, impartiality, and confidentiality.
2. The reviewer should evaluate only the scientific/professional qualities of the submitted work, regardless of the author's identity. All information about the manuscript is confidential and not subject to public disclosure.
3. The reviewer is obliged to inform the Editorial Board of any potential conflict of interest (personal, professional). In the event of a conflict of interest, the reviewer should decline to review the manuscript.
4. The reviewer must be objective, inform the Editor-in-Chief of any similarities/identity/resemblance between the submitted manuscript and articles published in other journals, and report any cases of plagiarism, etc. Any statement that the research results or conclusions have been previously published must be accompanied by relevant references and evidence.
5. The reviewer must be an expert in the field represented in the article.
6. The reviewer must be guided by the following evaluation criteria:

• relevance of the topic, i.e. its correspondence to current scientific and practical challenges;
• scientific novelty (originality of results, methods, approaches);
• theoretical and practical significance for the scientific community and practice;
• compliance with research methodology (reliability of experiments, methods used);
• structure and presentation (logical presentation, compliance with journal requirements, correctness of references);
• justification of results and conclusions;
• linguistic and stylistic quality (academic style).

If necessary, the reviewer should explain and justify their opinions so that both the editor and the author of the article understand the basis for their comments. The acceptance or rejection of submitted manuscripts must be justified and based on clear, well-formulated arguments from reviewers, which must be free of any personal criticism.