1. General Provisions

The peer review of manuscripts submitted to the Bulletin of the Jusup Balasagyn Kyrgyz National University is conducted to ensure the scientific quality, reliability and academic integrity of the materials published in the journal.

The main objectives of peer review are:

• to provide an objective assessment of the scientific quality of the manuscript;
• to determine the relevance, originality and practical significance of the research;
• to verify the validity of the methodology, results and conclusions;
• to establish whether the manuscript complies with the journal’s scope, publication requirements and principles of publication ethics;
• to provide authors with well-founded recommendations for improving the manuscript.

The Editorial Board organises peer review in accordance with the principles of objectivity, independence, confidentiality, professional competence and the avoidance of conflicts of interest.

Editors and reviewers must comply with the provisions of the journal’s Publication Ethics Policy and follow the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Peer Review Model

Research articles undergo double-anonymous peer review:

• reviewers are not informed of the authors’ names, affiliations or other personal details;
• authors are not informed of the reviewers’ names, affiliations or other personal details.

The Editorial Board takes reasonable measures to preserve the anonymity of both parties. However, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed where authors have independently disclosed their identity in the manuscript, references to their previous research, preprints, repositories or other publicly available materials.

As a general rule, each research article is submitted to at least two independent external reviewers. Members of the Editorial Board may conduct an initial scientific assessment and oversee the peer review process; however, their assessment does not replace independent external peer review.

Editorial materials, informational notices, obituaries and other materials that do not present the results of scientific research may be exempt from external peer review. The type and extent of editorial assessment applied to such materials are determined by the Editorial Board.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the Editorial Board checks:

• whether the material corresponds to the scope, aims and research areas of the journal;
• whether the manuscript complies with the journal’s structural and formatting requirements;
• whether the required information concerning the authors, funding, conflicts of interest, author contributions and compliance with research ethics has been provided;
• whether there are indications of plagiarism, duplicate, redundant or repeated publication;
• whether the submitted material complies with the general requirements of scientific and publication ethics.

The initial screening is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief or an appointed academic editor.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review if it:

• falls outside the scope of the journal;
• does not demonstrate sufficient scientific novelty;
• fails to meet the basic requirements applicable to scientific publications;
• contains substantial methodological deficiencies that cannot be remedied through revision;
• violates the principles of publication ethics;
• remains non-compliant with the journal’s formatting requirements after the author has been given an opportunity to correct the technical deficiencies.

A decision to reject a manuscript at the initial screening stage must be accompanied by reasons.

Where a manuscript meets the principal requirements, it is assigned a registration code. Before the manuscript is sent to reviewers, any information in the text and file metadata that could directly identify the authors is removed.

4. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic expertise, publication record and research experience in the subject area of the submitted manuscript.

Researchers holding an academic degree or possessing demonstrable research and publication experience in the relevant field may be invited to act as reviewers. Holding a doctoral degree is not the sole mandatory criterion for reviewer selection.

A reviewer must not:

• be employed by the same institution as the author of the manuscript;
• be the author’s academic supervisor, consultant or direct subordinate;
• have joint publications, ongoing collaborative projects or other close professional relationships with the author that may affect the objectivity of the assessment;
• have personal, financial, academic, institutional or other interests that may influence the review;
• be involved in competition or a dispute with the author where this prevents an impartial assessment of the manuscript.

The Editorial Board may take account of reviewers suggested by the authors but is under no obligation to appoint them. Reviewers proposed by the authors are subject to the same checks concerning competence, independence and the absence of conflicts of interest.

The final decision on the selection of reviewers is made by the Editorial Board.

5. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Before accepting an invitation to review, a reviewer must determine:

• whether the manuscript falls within their area of academic expertise;
• whether they are able to prepare the review within the specified period;
• whether they have any conflict of interest.

Where a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer lacks the necessary expertise or the review cannot be completed within the required period, the reviewer must decline the invitation and notify the Editorial Board.

A reviewer must:

• assess the manuscript objectively and impartially;
• formulate comments clearly, respectfully and with appropriate justification;
• refrain from discriminatory, derogatory, offensive or personal remarks concerning the author;
• refrain from using ideas, data, methods or results obtained through peer review for personal benefit before their official publication;
• refrain from sharing the manuscript or information concerning it with third parties without the prior written permission of the Editorial Board;
• refrain from involving other persons in the preparation of the review without the approval of the Editorial Board;
• inform the Editorial Board of all persons who participated in analysing the manuscript or preparing the review;
• notify the Editorial Board of any indications of plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, peer review manipulation or other violations of publication ethics;
• comply with the deadline established for preparing the review.

A reviewer must not require the citation of their own publications or other works unless those references are directly relevant to the scientific content of the manuscript under consideration.

6. Confidentiality

The manuscript, accompanying materials, correspondence, reviews and information concerning the progress of the editorial assessment are confidential.

Reviewers and editors must not:

• distribute the manuscript in full or in part;
• discuss its contents with persons who are not involved in the editorial process;
• use unpublished materials in their own research;
• disclose the identities of reviewers or authors;
• transfer manuscript materials to third-party digital services where this may result in a breach of confidentiality.

Reviewers are prohibited from uploading manuscripts, parts of manuscripts, unpublished data or review texts to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems or other external services without the prior written permission of the Editorial Board.

Where the Editorial Board permits the use of specific digital tools, such use must comply with confidentiality and data protection requirements. The reviewer must inform the Editorial Board that such tools have been used and remains personally responsible in all circumstances for the content, accuracy and substantiation of the review.

7. Criteria for Manuscript Assessment

During the peer review process, the following aspects are assessed:

• whether the content of the manuscript corresponds to its title, abstract, keywords and stated aim;
• whether the article falls within the scope of the journal;
• the relevance of the problem addressed;
• the originality and scientific novelty of the research;
• the comprehensiveness of the literature review and the accuracy of citations;
• the justification of the research aim, questions and hypotheses;
• the appropriateness of the methods in relation to the research aim;
• the adequacy and representativeness of the research material;
• the correctness of the statistical, qualitative or other forms of analysis;
• the reliability, consistency and reproducibility of the reported results;
• whether the conclusions are supported by the results obtained;
• the scientific and practical significance of the research;
• compliance with ethical standards in the conduct of the research;
• the quality of tables, figures, appendices and supplementary materials;
• the logical organisation of the manuscript, clarity of presentation and quality of academic language;
• the value of the article to specialists and readers of the journal.

The reviewer must distinguish between mandatory comments concerning the scientific validity of the work and advisory recommendations intended to improve the text.

8. Peer Review Outcomes

The reviewer completes the form established by the Editorial Board and selects one of the following recommendations:

• accept the article for publication without changes;
• accept the article after minor revisions;
• return the article for major revision followed by a further round of peer review;
• reject the article.

A recommendation for revision or rejection must be accompanied by a specific and reasoned explanation.

The review must assess the scientific content of the manuscript and not the author’s personality, nationality, sex, citizenship, institutional affiliation, political or religious views or other beliefs.

The Editorial Board may remove from the review any information that could identify the reviewer, as well as any offensive, discriminatory, unethical or scientifically irrelevant statements. Such editorial processing must not alter the substance of the scientific comments.

9. Conflicting Reviews

Where the conclusions of two reviewers differ substantially, the editor:

• analyses the arguments presented in both reviews;
• may request additional clarification from the reviewers;
• may submit the manuscript to a third independent reviewer;
• may request an assessment from an academic editor specialising in the relevant field.

The final decision is not made by mechanically counting positive and negative recommendations. The decisive considerations are the validity of the reviewers’ comments, the scientific reliability of the manuscript and its compliance with the journal’s requirements.

10. Revision of the Manuscript

The editorial decision and anonymised review reports are sent to the author for consideration.

When preparing a revised version, the author must:

• make the necessary changes to the manuscript;
• provide a separate point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments;
• indicate systematically which changes have been made;
• provide a reasoned explanation where particular recommendations have not been followed.

The Editorial Board does not require the author to agree unconditionally with every comment made by a reviewer. However, any disagreement must be supported by scientific reasoning.

The revised manuscript may be sent to the same reviewers or to other independent specialists. Reviewers may recommend further revisions where previously identified concerns have not been addressed or where substantial new issues arise following revision.

A request to revise an article does not constitute acceptance for publication. The manuscript may be rejected where the authors have failed to address substantial deficiencies, have not provided a reasoned response to the comments or where the revisions made do not ensure the required level of scientific quality.

11. Editorial Decision-Making

Decisions to accept, revise or reject a manuscript are based on:

• the scientific quality and originality of the research;
• the reliability and validity of the results;
• the article’s compliance with the scope and requirements of the journal;
• the reviewers’ reports;
• compliance with the principles of publication ethics;
• applicable legal requirements.

A decision must not be influenced by the author’s citizenship, nationality, ethnic origin, sex, religious or political views, institutional affiliation, academic status or the presence or absence of personal connections with the Editorial Board.

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor authorised by the Editor-in-Chief. The editor takes the reviewers’ reports into account but is not required to follow their recommendations automatically. Responsibility for the final editorial decision rests with the journal’s Editorial Board.

The editor may reject a manuscript despite positive recommendations from reviewers where substantial methodological deficiencies, unreliable data, violations of publication ethics, incompatibility with the journal’s scope or other circumstances preventing publication have been identified.

12. Conflicts of Interest Involving Editors

The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, academic editor or member of the Editorial Board must not participate in the consideration of a manuscript if they:

• are an author or co-author of the manuscript;
• have a family or close personal relationship with the author;
• work with the author in the same department or are directly involved in joint research with the author;
• have a financial, professional or other interest in the decision;
• are unable to ensure an objective and independent assessment of the manuscript.

Manuscripts authored by the Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editorial Board, editorial staff or persons connected with them are subject to the standard independent external peer review procedure. Such persons do not have access to information concerning the reviewers and do not participate in reviewer selection, correspondence, discussion or decision-making.

The consideration of such a manuscript is assigned to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or another independent editor who has no conflict of interest. Where necessary, the publisher appoints an independent specialist who has no connection with the authors or their research groups.

Information concerning the special procedure used to assess an article authored by an editor or a member of the Editorial Board may be disclosed in the published article.

13. Peer Review Timeframes

The usual period for preparing a single review is between two and four weeks.

The average period from the registration of a manuscript to the first editorial decision is between four and eight weeks. These timeframes are indicative and may vary depending on the subject matter and complexity of the research, the availability of qualified reviewers, the need for additional checks or the need to obtain a third review.

Where the consideration of a manuscript is substantially delayed, the Editorial Board informs the author of the reasons for the delay. The author may contact the Editorial Board to request information concerning the status of the manuscript or may withdraw the manuscript before a final decision is made.

14. Retention of Documents

Reviews, editorial decisions, authors’ responses and other documents relating to the consideration of a manuscript are retained by the Editorial Board for at least three years following the publication of the article or the final decision to reject the manuscript.

Access to these materials is restricted to authorised members of the editorial staff, unless otherwise required by law, by a competent authority or for the purpose of investigating a suspected violation of publication ethics.