General guidelines

All scientific articles and reviews published in the “Publisher” Journal undergo a double-anonymous peer-review process by independent experts (reviewers) and plagiarism detection software. Reviewers are selected based on their scientific specialty and expertise. If the manuscript is interdisciplinary, the editors may engage additional experts to evaluate it. Reviewers must hold a PhD degree and have an ORCID profile. The ORCID identification number must be included in the review. The peer review process is unpaid, and the journal does not provide financial remuneration to the reviewers. Reviews must be returned to the Editorial Office within 15 working days. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they must inform the Editorial Office to request an extension or, if necessary, to appoint a new expert.


The reviewers commit to respect anonymity (their own and that of the author) and not to disseminate the resulting manuscript, thus complying with the requirements and ethical principles of peer review. The reviewers will approach the manuscript fairly, objectively, and critically, adhering to the outlined ethical standards. They agree to submit the number of their reviews to scientific databases (Scopus, Web of Science). The editors are committed to maintaining the anonymity of authors and reviewers and will not publish the reviews.

The manuscript and the review form are sent from the editor’s work email. Articles under review are preprocessed and do not include the authors’ names and official details. All papers received are treated as confidential and are not subject to public comment.

After reading, verifying, and analyzing the manuscript, the reviewer completes the attached form and enters their name, official details (institution, address, email), and ORCID ID number. Once ready, the review is returned to the editor’s email and is considered accepted when the reviewer receives a formal letter of thanks from the editorial office. The Editorial Office is not obligated to accept a peer review that does not meet the academic criteria and code of ethics of scientific peer review.

Preparing the Review

The length of the review is not restricted. It is required that the main fields of the form are filled in conscientiously and that a reasoned expert opinion is provided in case the manuscript contains ambiguities and statements that raise objections or constitute an obstacle to its publication. Reviews should be written in either Bulgarian or English, depending on the main language of the manuscript.

The purpose of the review is to assist the author in addressing weaknesses in the manuscript. In this context, the reviewer provides recommendations on potential issues in the text, such as questionable arguments, misinterpretations, and factual errors. Additionally, the reviewer evaluates the references used and the overall style of presentation. Despite the manuscripts undergoing a similarity check, the reviewer also identifies possible similarities with other popular scientific works that have not been cited in the text.

The reviewers’ opinions and recommendations determine the manuscript’s publication or rejection. If the two reviewers disagree, a second reviewer is appointed and his/her opinion is decisive for the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.

The review guidelines align with COPE’s recommendations (Committee on Publication Ethics).

Download the review form here.