Peer review
The journal applies a double-blind peer review process, designed to ensure the objectivity and rigor of the evaluation. Reviewers assess the article according to the specified quality criteria in the following table:
| No. | Criterion | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Importance and topicality of the topic addressed | |
| 2. | Suitability of the title (conciseness, informative character, consistency with the content) | |
| 3. | Compliance with the structure inherent to a scientific article: abstract, keywords, introduction, methods applied, results and discussion, conclusions, references | |
| 4. | Relevance of the abstract (informative, consistent, highlights the full content of the article) | |
| 5. | Scientific quality of the article (novelty of the research; logical structure and optimal level of detail; originality and impact of the results; accuracy and validity of the conceptual content; correctness of implementation and veracity of the facts and data) | |
| 6. | Style of expression (the language used is scientific, clear and accessible, and complies with linguistic norms) | |
| 7. | Graphic presentation and appropriateness of including figures and tables (compliance of figures, tables, formulas, etc. with the formatting requirements) | |
| 8. | Relevance of the conclusions (they are presented coherently and reflect both the research approach and the results obtained) | |
| 9. | Relevance of the bibliographic sources (they are pertinent, up-to-date, and recent with respect to the subject studied) |
|
| 10. | Recommendations to the author(s) |
Acceptance; Acceptance with revisions; Rejection |
| 11. | Recommendations to the editor |
The results of the review are examined at the meetings of the editorial board of the journal Didactica Pro... An article is accepted for publication if it meets one of the following conditions:
- Both reviewers issue a favorable opinion and recommend the article for publication;
- One of the reviewers issues an unfavorable opinion, and the article is sent to a third reviewer for evaluation; the final decision is made by the editorial board, taking the latter's opinion into account.
If the author substantially revises a rejected article and resubmits it to the editorial office, the review procedure starts again from the beginning.
The review and editing process takes, on average, approximately 1-2 months.
The review template can be downloaded by clicking the following link: REVIEW