Peer Review Policy

General Provisions 

The editorial board of the journal “Agora. Social Sciences Journal” adheres to a double-blind peer review policy in accordance with international standards and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 

The purpose of the review policy is to ensure the objectivity, independence, and impartiality of the evaluation of scholarly materials through the implementation of a double-blind review process in which neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities.

Main Principles of Double-Blind Peer Review

  • Ensuring impartiality in evaluation by concealing the identities of the authors and reviewers.
  • Maintaining high standards of professional ethics during material evaluation. 
  • Preventing conflicts of interest through the appropriate selection of reviewers. 
  • Ensuring transparent and standardized review procedures.

Review Procedure

  1. Initial Editorial Review
  • After the article is submitted, the editorial staff checks the manuscript for compliance with publication requirements.
  • At this stage, the topic, quality of formatting and adherence to academic standards are assessed.
  • If the manuscript meets the requirements, it is forwarded for a double-blind peer review.
  1. Anonymization of Materials
  • The editorial staff ensures the removal of any identifying information about the authors from the manuscript, including names, institutions, biographical notes, and any other data that may reveal authorship.
  • Authors are required to prepare the manuscript in a format that eliminates the possibility of identification (Publication Submission).
  1. Selection of Reviewers
  • Each manuscript was assigned to at least two independent reviewers.
  • Reviewers must have the appropriate academic qualifications and experience in the subject area of the submitted manuscript.
  • The editorial staff will avoid appointing reviewers with potential conflicts of interest to the editorial board.
  • Communication between the reviewers and authors is managed by the editorial staff.
  1. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript using the following main criteria:

  • scientific novelty;
  • logical and coherent presentation.
  • methodological correctness of the research.
  • credibility of the results and the validity of the conclusions.

Compliance with ethical standards for conducting research quality of formatting.

  1. Reviewers’ Conclusions

The reviewer fills out a standardized form indicating one of the following conclusions:

  • accept for publication without changes;
  • accept with minor revisions;
  • returned to the author for substantial revision with the possibility of reconsideration;
  • reject for publication.
  1. Editorial Decision
  • The editor makes the decision regarding publication based on the reviewers’ conclusions.
  • If there are significant discrepancies between the reviews, the editor may appoint an additional reviewer.

Rights and responsibilities of reviewers

  1. Confidentiality

Materials received for review are confidential and must not be shared with third parties.

  1. Objectivity and Integrity

Reviewers must provide an unbiased, well-reasoned professional assessment.

Personal or professional bias towards the authors was not permitted.

  1. Detection of Ethical Violations

Reviewers must inform the editorial board of any suspicions of plagiarism, duplicate publications, data fabrication, or other breaches of publication ethics.

  1. Timeliness

Reviewers are required to complete their reviews within the established deadlines.

The average review period was 3–4 weeks.

Rights and Responsibilities of Authors

  1. Fulfilling Anonymization Requirements

Authors must ensure that the manuscript is prepared without any personal identifiers (Publication Submission).

  1. Responding to Reviewers’ Comments

If the article is returned for revision, the authors are required to provide well-reasoned responses to all comments.

  1. Respect for Ethical Standards

The authors must adhere to the principles of honesty, accuracy, and research transparency.

Repeated review after revision

  • The revised manuscript, prepared considering the comments, is resubmitted to the reviewer for evaluation of the corrections and formulation of the final decision.
  • If the author does not agree with the reviewer's comments, they have the right to submit a reasoned explanation to the editorial board.

Consideration of disputed situations

  • In the event of a disagreement between the author and the reviewer, the manuscript is submitted for consideration by the working group of the publication's editorial board.
  • The working group conducts a detailed analysis of both parties' positions and may appoint an additional external review. 
  • If the author is unable or unwilling to address the reviewers' reasonable comments, the publication's working group reserves the right to reject the article. 
  • The authors are always informed of the decisions made.

Editorial processing of accepted articles

  • An article that has received a positive decision and has been accepted for publication is forwarded to the responsible editor for editorial and stylistic processing.
  • Minor stylistic edits that do not affect the content may be made by the editor without consulting the authors. 
  • At the author's request, the editorial board provided  a layout of the article with all the changes made. 
  • If the stylistic changes are numerous or may alter the content, consultation with the authors is mandatory.

Preparation of the next issue of the publication

Articles that have passed all stages of review and editorial processing are included in the next issue.   The final layout of the issue is signed by the Editor-in-Chief and recommended for printing by the decision of the Academic Council of the National University of Ostroh Academy.

Manuscripts of the members of the editorial board of the publication

  • Manuscripts prepared by members of the Editorial Board or co-authored with them are considered only in exceptional cases and must not exceed 10% of the annual publication volume.
  • The Editor-in-Chief exclusively reviews such manuscripts without the involvement of other members of the editorial board. 
  • Only external reviewers are allowed to participate in the review process, and in the case of conflicting opinions, one to two additional reviewers may be appointed. 
  • Manuscripts must include a mandatory indication of the author’s or coauthor’s membership in the editorial board. 
  • The entire review process was thoroughly documented to ensure transparency and compliance with COPE ethical standards.

Manuscripts of the editors of the publication

  • Manuscripts prepared by the editors of this publication are not accepted for review or publication.
  • Editors may only publish reviews, scientific discussions, overviews of scientific events, or other materials that reflect the official position of the Editorial Board and do not undergo the review process.

Conflicts of interest

  • All participants in the process (editors, reviewers, and authors) must declare any potential conflicts of interest.
  • If a conflict is identified, the reviewer or editor is recused from working on the manuscript.

Final provisions

  • The double-blind peer-review policy may be updated periodically.
  • All authors, reviewers, and editors who interact with the publication are required to familiarize themselves with this policy and comply with its provisions. 
  • In cases of possible violations, the Editorial Office acts in accordance with the recommended COPE procedures.