Peer Review Process

1. General Provisions

1.1. All scientific articles submitted to the journal “Polygraphy and Publishing” are subject to mandatory peer review.

1.2. The purpose of peer review is to ensure the appropriate scientific quality of publications, verify the compliance of submitted materials with the journal’s scope, and assess the relevance, scientific novelty, reliability of research results, and adherence to the principles of academic integrity.

1.3. Peer review is an integral part of the editorial process and is carried out in accordance with the journal’s editorial policy, publication ethics standards, and generally accepted practices of scholarly publishing.

2. Organization of Peer Review

2.1. The editorial board organizes peer review for each manuscript that has passed the initial technical screening and meets the journal’s scope.

2.2. Peer review is conducted by experts with appropriate academic qualifications and expertise in the relevant field.

2.3. The reviewer evaluates the manuscript with regard to its scientific novelty, clarity of presentation, methodological soundness, reliability of results, completeness of references, validity of conclusions, and compliance with the journal’s requirements.

3. Main Evaluation Criteria

3.1. The peer review process takes into account, in particular, the following criteria:

• relevance of the article to the journal’s scope;
• timeliness and scientific significance of the research;
• level of scientific novelty;
• soundness of the research methodology;
• reliability and accuracy of the presented results;
• logical structure and clarity of presentation;
• completeness and relevance of the references used;
• compliance with the principles of academic integrity;
• quality of manuscript preparation in accordance with established requirements.

4. Editorial Decisions Based on Peer Review

4.1. Based on the results of peer review, the following decisions may be made:

• accept the article for publication;
• accept the article for publication subject to minor revisions;
• request major revisions with subsequent re-evaluation;
• reject the article.

4.2. If the author is requested to revise the manuscript, they must submit a revised version within the timeframe specified by the editorial office and, where necessary, provide a response explaining how the reviewer’s comments have been addressed.

4.3. In the case of conflicting reviews, the editorial board may send the manuscript for additional review or make a decision after consideration by the editorial board.

5. Confidentiality and Ethical Requirements

5.1. Manuscripts submitted for review are treated as confidential documents.

5.2. Reviewers must adhere to the principles of objectivity, impartiality, confidentiality, and avoidance of conflicts of interest.

5.3. Information obtained by the reviewer during the review process must not be used for personal advantage or disclosed to third parties.

6. Final Provisions

6.1. The final decision on the publication of an article is made by the editorial board, taking into account the results of peer review.

6.2. The peer review process forms part of the editorial policy of the journal “Polygraphy and Publishing” and is made publicly available on the official website of the journal.