Before accepting a review assignment through the journal’s manuscript management system, reviewers must confirm their availability and declare, by selecting the corresponding option, that they can undertake the review without a conflict of interest.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts according to their scientific expertise and the journal’s evaluation criteria. Their assessment may address, among other aspects:

•⁠  ⁠The originality and relevance of the research.

•⁠  ⁠The clarity of the research objectives and questions.

•⁠  ⁠The appropriateness of the methodology.

•⁠  ⁠The quality and consistency of the analysis.

•⁠  ⁠The presentation and interpretation of results.

•⁠  ⁠The soundness of the conclusions.

•⁠  ⁠The relevance and use of the bibliography.

•⁠  ⁠The manuscript’s contribution to scientific knowledge.

Reviewers must complete the journal’s official Evaluation Form.

The form distinguishes between confidential comments intended for the Editorial Secretariat and comments or recommendations intended for the authors. Comments forwarded to authors must not disclose reviewers’ personal data.

Reviewers are expected to provide critical but constructive, reasoned, and professionally expressed feedback that helps authors understand the strengths and weaknesses of their work. Comments intended for authors should not contain recommendations for acceptance or rejection; these recommendations must be recorded in the designated section of the Evaluation Form.

Reviewers should complete and submit their assessments within the prescribed period and follow the system’s instructions for saving and finalising the Evaluation Form.

All communications relating to the peer-review process are coordinated by the Editorial Secretariat. Authors and reviewers are not placed in direct contact with one another during the review process.

The manuscript management system handles routine notifications, including submission acknowledgements, review invitations, assignment confirmations, and notifications generated by the review workflow.

Where clarification, additional information, revisions, or other specific action is required, the Editorial Secretariat communicates directly with the relevant authors or reviewers and coordinates the necessary follow-up. When reviewers request revisions, the Secretariat communicates the requirements to the authors and coordinates the submission of the revised manuscript to the relevant reviewer for further assessment.

The Editorial Secretariat safeguards the confidentiality of the process and ensures that reviewers’ personal data are not disclosed to authors. Communications and documents are handled in a manner consistent with the journal’s double-blind peer-review procedure.

Reviewers are normally given three weeks from acceptance of a review assignment to submit their initial assessment. Where revisions are requested, the Secretariat coordinates subsequent review stages and communicates the applicable deadlines, taking into account the nature of the requested changes and the requirements of the review process.

The Editorial Secretariat monitors the progress of reviews, follows up when necessary, and coordinates the exchange of revised manuscripts and further assessments until the reviewers reach their final recommendations.

The time required to reach a final editorial decision may vary depending on the reviewers’ assessments, the revisions required, the need for additional checks, and any further evaluation that may be necessary.

The Editorial Secretariat conducts preliminary checks on submitted manuscripts to assess their originality, research integrity, and compliance with the journal’s publication ethics requirements. 

As part of this process, the Editorial Secretariat uses Crossref Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate from Turnitin, to identify textual similarities with previously published material and other available sources. The Secretariat also examines available indicators relating to the possible use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of manuscripts.

Automated similarity and AI-detection tools are used as part of the journal’s preliminary screening process. Their results help identify potential concerns and determine whether further assessment is necessary. Where the preliminary checks reveal clear and substantial evidence of plagiarism or another serious breach of the journal’s publication ethics requirements, the Editorial Secretariat examines the findings and may reject the manuscript directly when the evidence is sufficiently clear and substantiated. Such decisions are based on the professional assessment of the Secretariat’s staff and the underlying evidence, rather than solely on automated scores or detection results.

The interpretation of similarity reports takes into account the nature, extent, and context of the detected matches, including the relevance of quotations, references, bibliographic entries, standard terminology, and other legitimate textual overlaps. Numerical similarity percentages are considered in conjunction with the underlying evidence and are not, in isolation, treated as a definitive measure of plagiarism.

Where appropriate, the Editorial Secretariat may seek an independent assessment from qualified human reviewers to interpret technical findings relating to similarity, possible plagiarism, or the use of artificial intelligence. Their expert judgment helps establish the significance of the findings in the context of the manuscript and prevents an uncritical reliance on automated results.

Cases requiring specialised ethical assessment are referred internally to the Ethics Committee, which brings together members of the Editorial Secretariat and the Editorial Board with relevant professional expertise. The Committee examines the available evidence, considers the authors’ explanations where applicable, and provides a reasoned assessment and recommendation. Serious or particularly complex cases are subsequently submitted to the Editorial Board for consideration and the final editorial decision.

Academicus ISJ is committed to responsible editorial practice, research integrity, and the fair assessment of manuscripts. The journal applies its screening and assessment procedures with due regard for the evidence, the context of each case, and the professional judgment required to safeguard the integrity of scientific publishing.

The Editorial Board of Academicus International Scientific Journal is responsible for the journal’s editorial organisation, publication planning, and the composition of its issues.

The scientific assessment of submitted manuscripts is the responsibility of the independent peer reviewers, who evaluate each manuscript according to the journal’s peer-review procedures and provide their final recommendations on publication or rejection. Neither the Editorial Board nor the Editorial Secretariat substitutes its own scientific judgment for that of the reviewers.

The Editorial Secretariat coordinates the administrative aspects of the peer-review process, manages communications between authors and reviewers, oversees the submission of revised manuscripts, and records the reviewers’ final recommendations in accordance with the journal’s established procedures.

The Editorial Board focuses on the organisation of the journal’s issues, including the selection of articles for each issue from among manuscripts approved for publication through the peer-review process, the order in which articles appear, and the planning of publication schedules.

When organising issues, the Editorial Board may take into account thematic coherence, disciplinary diversity, institutional representation, and the overall balance of the journal’s scientific content. Where appropriate, articles by the same author or from the same institution or faculty may be scheduled for different issues to support balanced publication planning.

The Editorial Board does not reassess the scientific merit of manuscripts or replace the reviewers’ publication recommendations with its own scientific judgment. However, issues relating to publication ethics, plagiarism, the use of artificial intelligence, or other concerns affecting research integrity may require further examination even after the reviewers have submitted their final recommendations. Such matters are handled in accordance with the journal’s procedures, involving the Editorial Secretariat and, where appropriate, the Ethics Committee and the Editorial Board.

The journal maintains a clear distinction between independent scientific peer review, the management of publication ethics and research integrity concerns, and the editorial organisation of published issues.

The editorial process does not end automatically when a manuscript receives a positive peer-review outcome.

Between the completion of peer review and publication, the Editorial Secretariat continues to monitor compliance with the journal’s formal, documentary, bibliographic, publication ethics, and research integrity requirements.

If new and substantiated concerns arise during this period, the Editorial Secretariat documents the findings and conducts the appropriate preliminary assessment. Where clear and substantiated evidence of plagiarism or another serious breach of the journal’s publication ethics requirements is identified, the Secretariat may reject the manuscript in accordance with the procedures described in Section 8.

Cases requiring specialised ethical assessment are referred to the Ethics Committee, which examines the available evidence and provides its assessment and recommendation. Serious or particularly complex cases are submitted to the Editorial Board for consideration and the final editorial decision.

Where a concern requires further scientific assessment, the manuscript may be referred back to the peer reviewers for additional evaluation. Such a referral preserves the distinction between scientific assessment, which remains the responsibility of the reviewers, and the management of publication ethics and editorial procedures.

A positive peer-review outcome normally supports publication, provided that the applicable editorial, documentary, ethical, and research integrity requirements are satisfied. Where substantiated concerns materially affect a manuscript’s integrity or eligibility for publication, publication may be suspended while the matter is examined and resolved in accordance with the journal’s procedures.

These procedures are intended to protect the reliability of the scientific record and ensure that relevant concerns arising before publication are addressed responsibly.

The scientific evaluation of a manuscript is conducted independently by the peer reviewers, who issue their final recommendations after any required minor or major revisions, clarifications, or further assessments. The Editorial Secretariat acts as the intermediary between reviewers and authors throughout this process, coordinating communications and managing the submission and assessment of revised manuscripts. Where the reviewers’ final recommendations conflict, the procedure described in Section 6 applies, including the appointment of a third independent reviewer when required.

Once the peer-review process has been completed and a positive scientific recommendation has been reached, the manuscript proceeds to a further editorial assessment conducted by the Editorial Secretariat before the Editorial Board makes its publication decision.

This additional assessment does not constitute a second scientific peer review and does not involve replacing or reassessing the reviewers’ scientific judgment. Its purpose is to identify and address issues relating to plagiarism, textual similarity, publication ethics, research integrity, the appropriate use of artificial intelligence, bibliographic accuracy, editorial standards, conceptual consistency, documentary requirements, and other matters relevant to the integrity and suitability of the manuscript for publication.

The Editorial Secretariat may use appropriate software tools, documentary checks, professional expertise, and other relevant resources to conduct this assessment. It also considers newly available information, recently published material, and other developments that may have emerged since the initial screening or during peer review.

Where no outstanding concerns remain, the manuscript is submitted to the Editorial Board for its publication decision and, where applicable, inclusion in a forthcoming issue. The Editorial Board is responsible for publication planning and the organisation of the journal’s issues, while respecting the independent scientific assessment provided by the reviewers.

Where the Editorial Secretariat identifies clear and substantiated evidence of plagiarism or another serious breach of publication ethics or research integrity, the matter is handled in accordance with the journal’s established procedures. Depending on its nature and seriousness, the case may be addressed by the Secretariat or referred to the internal Ethics Committee for assessment and recommendation. Serious or particularly complex cases may be submitted to the Editorial Board for consideration and a final editorial decision.

These additional checks are intended to safeguard publication integrity and editorial quality. They do not authorise the Editorial Secretariat or the Editorial Board to substitute their own scientific judgment for that of the peer reviewers. Cases requiring further scientific assessment may be referred back to the reviewers in accordance with the journal’s procedures.

Academicus International Scientific Journal is committed to maintaining a confidential, independent, impartial, and ethically responsible peer-review process.

The journal applies a double-blind peer-review procedure. Appropriate measures are taken to protect the identities of authors and reviewers throughout the review process. Authors and reviewers do not communicate directly with one another. All communications relating to manuscript evaluation, revision requests, and subsequent assessments are coordinated by the Editorial Secretariat.

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts independently, objectively, and within their areas of expertise. They must preserve the confidentiality of submitted materials, disclose any potential conflicts of interest, and provide reasoned, constructive, and professionally expressed assessments. Their recommendations must reflect their independent professional judgment.

The Editorial Secretariat safeguards confidential information, coordinates communications between authors and reviewers, maintains the relevant records, and oversees compliance with the journal’s peer-review procedures. It also conducts the preliminary and pre-publication checks described in the preceding sections, addressing concerns relating to publication ethics, plagiarism, research integrity, and editorial compliance without substituting its judgment for the reviewers’ scientific assessment.

The Ethics Committee is an internal body that examines cases requiring specialised ethical assessment and provides its recommendations. Where appropriate, serious or particularly complex cases are submitted to the Editorial Board for consideration and a final editorial decision in accordance with the journal’s established procedures.

All participants in the publication process are expected to act with integrity, fairness, professional independence, and respect for confidentiality. Academicus ISJ seeks to ensure that manuscripts are assessed responsibly, that authors receive appropriate and constructive communication, and that substantiated concerns affecting publication integrity are addressed through the appropriate procedures.

Through these commitments, Academicus International Scientific Journal seeks to protect the integrity of scientific publishing while supporting the responsible dissemination of scholarly knowledge