International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal "Expert"
The publisher is the legal entity "ASPECT-PRO" LTD, (BULSTAT Unified Identification Code: 206917762), which conducts its business activities on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria and is registered in the city of Plovdiv.
Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process Editorial Screening, Double-Blind Review, and Publication Decision-Making
At International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal "Expert", peer review is conducted through a structured editorial and evaluative procedure intended to uphold academic standards, ethical principles, and the integrity of publication decisions.
All submitted manuscripts first undergo an initial editorial screening to assess their relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, compliance with submission guidelines, originality, and overall academic suitability. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be rejected at this stage without external review.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening proceed to a double-blind peer review process. Before review, identifying information is removed from the manuscript to ensure reviewer anonymity. In this process, reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s), and the author(s) do not know the identity of the reviewers.
Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic expertise, subject relevance, institutional independence, and the absence of conflicts of interest. Manuscripts are treated as confidential documents throughout the review process.
Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript objectively and assess its originality, scientific merit, methodological soundness, relevance to the field, clarity of presentation, adequacy of methodology, interpretation of results, and validity of the conclusions. The review is conducted using a structured Manuscript Review Form, which helps standardize evaluation criteria and recommendations. Reviewers are also expected to report any suspected plagiarism, research misconduct, or other ethical concerns to the editor.
Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editorial team makes one of the following decisions: accept, accept with minor revisions, reconsider after major revisions, or reject. Where revisions are required, the revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.
The final decision on publication is made by the editorial team on the basis of the peer reviewers’ recommendations and the academic merit of the manuscript. All editorial decisions are made independently and are guided by the principles of academic integrity, confidentiality, fairness, and publication ethics.
Further details on reviewer responsibilities and evaluation principles are available in the journal’s Guidelines for Reviewers.
All submitted manuscripts first undergo an initial editorial screening to assess their relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, compliance with submission guidelines, originality, and overall academic suitability. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be rejected at this stage without external review.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening proceed to a double-blind peer review process. Before review, identifying information is removed from the manuscript to ensure reviewer anonymity. In this process, reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s), and the author(s) do not know the identity of the reviewers.
Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic expertise, subject relevance, institutional independence, and the absence of conflicts of interest. Manuscripts are treated as confidential documents throughout the review process.
Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript objectively and assess its originality, scientific merit, methodological soundness, relevance to the field, clarity of presentation, adequacy of methodology, interpretation of results, and validity of the conclusions. The review is conducted using a structured Manuscript Review Form, which helps standardize evaluation criteria and recommendations. Reviewers are also expected to report any suspected plagiarism, research misconduct, or other ethical concerns to the editor.
Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editorial team makes one of the following decisions: accept, accept with minor revisions, reconsider after major revisions, or reject. Where revisions are required, the revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.
The final decision on publication is made by the editorial team on the basis of the peer reviewers’ recommendations and the academic merit of the manuscript. All editorial decisions are made independently and are guided by the principles of academic integrity, confidentiality, fairness, and publication ethics.
Further details on reviewer responsibilities and evaluation principles are available in the journal’s Guidelines for Reviewers.
Have any questions?
Leave your questions in the feedback form.
© 2023-2026 «ASPECT-PRO» LTD. Website design and layout are copyrighted. Content under CC BY unless specified.
About the Journal