Review

1. Confidentiality

  • Non-Disclosure: The reviewer is obliged to treat the manuscript as a confidential document. It is forbidden to discuss its content with other individuals (other than those the editor may engage as consultants) or to use data, ideas, or results presented in the unpublished article for their own research.

  • Destruction: Upon completion of the review, copies of the manuscript (in any format) must be destroyed.

2. Timeliness

  • The reviewer must inform the editor of their inability to complete the review within the established deadline (usually 3–4 weeks) or immediately decline the assignment if they do not have sufficient time.

3. Objectivity and Constructiveness

  • The review must be objective, clear, and constructive.

  • Subjective criticism or personaform/questionnaire l attacks on the authors are unacceptable.

  • Each critical point must be supported by an argument and, whenever possible, a reference to relevant literature.

4. Key Aspects for Evaluation

The reviewer must evaluate the following elements of the manuscript:

  • Are the chosen methods (field, lform/questionnaire aboratory, computational) adequate for the stated goals? Can the results be reproduced based on the description provided?

  • Are the results (tables, figures) clearly presented? Are the data interpreted correctly? Do the conclusions correspond to the presented results?

  • Is the list of references up-to-date and sufficiently complete? Are key works in the field cited?

5. Review Comment1. Конфіденційність

  • Confidential Comment for the Editor: Contains the general impression, the final recommendation (accept, revise, reject), and any personal considerations regarding ethics or conflict of interest.

  • Comment for the Authors: A detailed list of specific remarks (divided into "Major" and "Minor") with an indication of the page/line number to help the authors improve the manuscript.

6. Review Format

  • The Editorial Board recommends using the review form/questionnaire when preparing the review.

7. Final Recommendation

The reviewer must choose one of the following recommendations, justifying their choice in the comments:

  • Accept: The work is ready for publication.

  • Minor Revision (Переглянути з незначними виправленнями): The work is of high quality but requires small, clearly defined changes.

  • Major Revision (Переглянути з суттєвими виправленнями): Significant changes are needed (methodology, additional analysis, rewriting the discussion). The work will be reviewed again.

  • Reject: The work does not meet the journal's standards (low novelty, serious methodological errors, ethical violations).