Review Policy

The journal “Current Problems of Sustainable Development” applies independent scientific peer review as the primary mechanism for ensuring the quality, reliability, and academic integrity of scholarly publications. The peer review process is aimed at the objective evaluation of manuscripts based on criteria such as scientific novelty, relevance, methodological rigor, practical significance, and compliance with the journal’s scope. The editorial policy is based on international publishing standards, including the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the terminology of the ANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023 Standard Terminology for Peer Review.

Peer Review Model

The journal uses a double-blind peer review model, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. All submitted materials are treated as confidential, ensuring independence, objectivity, and impartiality in the evaluation process.

Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening, which includes an assessment of the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope, compliance with formatting requirements, verification of academic integrity, accuracy of citations, and a preliminary evaluation of the scientific quality. At this stage, the editorial board may reject a manuscript without external review if it does not meet the journal’s standards or thematic focus.

Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected by the editorial board based on their academic expertise, research experience, publication record in the relevant field, professional reputation, and absence of conflicts of interest. Wherever possible, reviewers are independent of the authors’ affiliated institutions. Both national and international experts in sustainable development, economics, management, public administration, environmental studies, social sciences, and related fields may be involved.

Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers. If necessary, particularly in cases of significantly divergent opinions, interdisciplinary research, or the need for specialized expertise, additional reviewers may be invited.

The review process is conducted using a standardized evaluation form and includes assessment of the manuscript’s relevance, originality, methodological soundness, validity of results, clarity of presentation, practical implications, proper use of sources, and compliance with academic standards. Reviews are provided in written form with substantiated comments and recommendations.

Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editorial board makes one of the following decisions: accept the manuscript; accept with minor revisions; request major revisions with possible re-review; or reject the manuscript. The final decision is made by the editorial board, taking into account the reviewers’ recommendations, the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope, and the quality of revisions.

Manuscript Revision

Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments and are required to address them or provide a reasoned response to each comment. If necessary, the revised manuscript may be sent for an additional round of peer review.

Confidentiality and Ethical Principles

The editorial board ensures the confidentiality of all submitted materials at every stage of the review process. Reviewers must not share manuscripts with third parties or use the content prior to publication. In the event of a conflict of interest, reviewers are required to decline participation in the review process.

Special Cases

When manuscripts are submitted by members of the editorial board, the review process is managed independently by another editor, and external reviewers are involved to ensure impartiality. Such submissions are subject to the same double-blind peer review procedure without any exceptions.

Appeals

Authors have the right to submit an appeal if they disagree with the editorial decision. Appeals are reviewed by the editorial board and, if necessary, by additional independent experts. The final decision is made after careful consideration of the author’s arguments and the results of the additional review. The appeal must be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date of the editorial decision.

Review Timeline

The overall review period, including editorial screening and peer review, typically ranges from 4 to 8 weeks.