All manuscripts submitted for publication in the conference proceedings undergo preliminary editorial screening and academic peer review by experts in the relevant field.

Manuscripts are evaluated on the basis of their scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, significance, and relevance to the thematic scope of the conference. The authors’ institutional affiliation, academic position, nationality, gender, or other personal characteristics do not influence the editorial decision.

The final decision on the acceptance and publication of a manuscript is made by the Editorial Board on the basis of the preliminary screening, the reviewers’ reports, and the authors’ completion of the requested revisions.

Before being sent for peer review, each manuscript is checked for compliance with the thematic scope of the conference, the title and research focus approved during registration, and the technical requirements for paper preparation and formatting. The screening also verifies the inclusion of an abstract, keywords, and JEL classification codes, the appropriate structure of the manuscript, the completeness of the references, and compliance with publication ethics requirements.

The abstract included in the final manuscript must correspond, in terms of topic, objective, and principal research focus, to the abstract approved during registration. Editorial revisions and updates to the research results are permitted, provided that they do not substantially alter the approved topic.

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary screening are assigned to independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant academic field. Reviewers provide a reasoned evaluation, recommendations regarding any necessary revisions, and an opinion on the manuscript’s suitability for publication. Where reviewers’ assessments differ substantially, the Editorial Board may request an additional opinion or assign the manuscript to another independent reviewer.

Manuscripts, review reports, and editorial correspondence are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not use or distribute any unpublished ideas, data, or results contained in the materials provided to them.

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

• the consistency of the title, abstract, keywords, and JEL classification codes with the content of the manuscript;
• the clear formulation of the research problem, objective, research questions, thesis, or hypotheses;
• the relevance and scope of the academic literature used;
• the originality, scientific significance, and theoretical and/or practical contribution of the study;
• the suitability of the research design, data, and methods applied;
• the reliability and verifiability of the data, statistical results, and evidence;
• the consistency between the research objective, methodology, analysis, results, and conclusions;
• the clear and objective presentation and interpretation of the results;
• the appropriate discussion of the study’s limitations and possible alternative explanations;
• the logical structure, academic style, and linguistic and terminological accuracy of the manuscript;
• the correct labelling, numbering, and referencing of tables, figures, equations, and appendices;
• the consistency between in-text citations and the reference list.

The conclusions must be supported by the data and analyses presented. Claims that extend beyond what can be supported by the data and methods used are not permitted.

Based on the results of the peer review process, one of the following decisions may be made:

Where revisions are required, the authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a response to the reviewers, clearly indicating the changes made in response to each recommendation. Where a particular recommendation has not been followed, the authors must provide a scientifically reasoned explanation.

All submitted manuscripts are screened using specialised text-similarity detection software. The resulting similarity percentage serves as an indicator for subsequent substantive assessment and does not automatically constitute evidence of plagiarism.

The reference list, properly marked direct quotations, standard names of institutions, documents, and methods, as well as other technical or unavoidable similarities, may be excluded from the assessment.

The following are considered violations of publication ethics:

• using another person’s text, ideas, data, results, tables, figures, or other materials without appropriate acknowledgement;
• reproducing text verbatim without quotation marks and proper attribution to the source;
• paraphrasing another person’s work without appropriate acknowledgement;
• reusing substantial parts of the author’s own previous publication without disclosure;
• simultaneously submitting or publishing the same manuscript in more than one publication;
• fabricating, falsifying, or manipulating data and research results;
• using technical means to circumvent the text-similarity screening process.

Where the identified issues are limited and can be remedied, the authors may be given an opportunity to revise the manuscript. In cases of substantial plagiarism, deliberate manipulation, or duplicate publication, the manuscript will be rejected.

If a violation is identified after publication, the Editorial Board may publish a correction, retract the publication, or take other appropriate action.

Self-citation must be scientifically justified and directly relevant to the subject of the study. As a general rule, sources authored or co-authored by one or more of the manuscript’s authors should not exceed 30% of the entries in the reference list.

Authors, reviewers, and members of the Editorial Board must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, or personal conflict of interest that could influence the evaluation process.

Where the research involves human participants, personal data, or sensitive information, the authors must provide information about the ethical approval obtained, the existence of informed consent, and the measures taken to protect personal data, where applicable.

Generative artificial intelligence and AI-assisted technologies cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the submitted content.

Any substantial use of generative AI in preparing the text, conducting the analysis, programming, creating images, or producing other components of the research must be disclosed. The disclosure must identify the tool used and explain the purpose for which it was used. Routine language editing limited to spelling, grammar, readability, and style does not require disclosure.

The final acceptance of a manuscript depends on a positive assessment of its scientific quality, the satisfactory completion of the requested revisions, compliance with the technical requirements, and adherence to publication ethics.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to perform technical, linguistic, and bibliographic editing, provided that such editing does not alter the scientific content, results, or conclusions of the manuscript.

Authors may submit a written and reasoned appeal if they believe that a material factual or procedural error has occurred during the evaluation process. The appeal must identify the specific grounds for the objection and include appropriate scientific arguments.

The decision of the Editorial Board following consideration of the appeal is final.