Peer Review Procedure

1. Type of peer review.
The journal applies the Double-Blind Peer Review model. This process ensures complete anonymity: the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the entire evaluation cycle.

2. Criteria for selecting reviewers.
Leading specialists in the relevant field of linguistics are invited to conduct scholarly expertise. The key criteria include:

• possession of an academic degree (Doctor of Sciences / Candidate of Sciences (PhD));

• a record of recent publications within the subject area of the reviewed manuscript;

• absence of any conflict of interest with the authors.

3. Stages and timelines.
The review procedure consists of three stages:

• Pre-check: an initial editorial screening for thematic relevance and compliance with submission requirements (up to 7–10 days);

• Expert evaluation: the manuscript is sent to at least two independent experts. The average review period is 3–5 weeks;

• Finalization: revision of the manuscript by the author, if required.

•  

4. Documentation formats and transparency.
The results of expert evaluation are documented in the form of written peer-review reports (expert assessments).

• The journal follows a policy of public archiving: depersonalized peer-review reports are made openly accessible on the journal’s website after the issue is published.
• Review form: reviewers complete a standardized evaluation form assessing the novelty, methodology, and source base of the manuscript.
• Peer-review reports are stored in a dedicated public register on the website, confirming the quality and rigor of the review process.

•  

•  

5. Decision-making.
Decisions on the acceptance of an article for publication are made collegially:

• acceptance is based on the receipt of positive reviews from both experts;

• the final decision is approved by the Editorial Board.

• The Editorial Board reserves the right to make technical edits to the text while preserving the substance of the author’s conclusions.