Peer Review Policy and Rules

1. Since 2019, Aluna Publishing House has been using an editorial panel that streamlines the workflow from manuscript submission through peer review to preparation for print.
   The review process is as follows:

A. Initial evaluation.
The editorial team reads the submitted article. The article is reviewed by a thematic editor who decides to:
– reject the paper,
– request corrections of deficiencies before external review,
– send the paper for external peer review.

B. Rejection without review.
If a paper is rejected without review, all submitted materials are returned to the author and deleted from the system.

C. Revision before review.
If corrections are requested, the Editorial Board sets a deadline for resubmission. If the authors fail to meet the deadline, the Board may withdraw from further consideration.

D. External review.
If the article receives a positive initial evaluation, it is sent via the editorial system to two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant scientific field.
Reviewers are selected to avoid any conflict of interest — they come from outside the authors’ institution and have not collaborated with the authors in recent years.

E. Review form and evaluation criteria.
Reviewers prepare a descriptive report and complete a review form available in the editorial system.
The evaluation covers, in particular:
– originality and relevance of the topic,
– scientific and methodological accuracy,
– quality of data analysis and interpretation,
– clarity and structure of presentation,
– contribution of the work to medical science and practice.

In the review form, the reviewer classifies the article as:
– accepted without revision,
– accepted after revision,
– rejected.
In justified cases, the reviewer may recommend another review after major revision.

F. Editorial decision.
The final decision to accept or reject the paper is made by the Editor-in-Chief after considering the opinions of two reviewers and the authors’ responses.
If there are significant discrepancies between the reviews, the Editorial Board may appoint an additional reviewer.

G. Appeals and complaints.
Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals must be submitted in writing and will be considered by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, by an independent reviewer who was not involved in the original evaluation.

2. Aluna Publishing House applies the double-blind peer review principle.
   Authors’ identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors.
   All reviews and related correspondence are stored in the publisher’s internal documentation.
   At the end of each calendar year, a collective list of reviewers cooperating with the Editorial Board is published on the journal’s website.

3. The reviewer undertakes to:
   – cooperate with the Editorial Board to improve the scientific quality of the article,
   – provide a careful and objective assessment of the work in accordance with the fair play principle,
   – maintain confidentiality and refrain from using the manuscript for personal purposes,
   – complete the review within the specified deadline or promptly inform the editors of any delay,
   – decline to review in case of a conflict of interest with the author(s) or their institution,
   – comply with ethical standards and the internal review rules adopted by Aluna Publishing House.

If the reviewer identifies any form of plagiarism, data fabrication, or other ethical misconduct, they are obliged to report it confidentially to the Editorial Board.
Such notifications are handled in accordance with COPE procedures.

4. The reviewers agree to comply with the Publication Ethics and Peer Review Policy and Rules of Aluna Publishing House.
   Ethical principles apply to all persons involved in the peer review and editorial process.