The journal ‘Perinatology and Reproductology: From Research to Practice’ employs a double-blind peer review system, which ensures complete anonymity for both authors and reviewers. This approach guarantees the objectivity of the assessment, minimises bias and enhances the quality of publications.

The peer review process consists of several consecutive stages.

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editorial board conducts an initial technical and content assessment to determine whether the material is relevant to the journal’s scope, meets formal requirements, adheres to formatting guidelines, and complies with ethical standards. Manuscripts that do not meet the basic criteria may be returned to the authors without being sent for peer review.

Manuscripts accepted for further consideration are sent to two independent expert reviewers who possess the relevant academic qualifications in the subject area of the submitted work. Reviewers assess the relevance of the topic, the soundness of the methodology, the reliability of the results, the quality of the analysis, compliance with ethical requirements, and the article’s contribution to the development of the field.

Upon receipt of the reviews, the editor analyses the conclusions and makes one of the following decisions:

- to accept the article for publication;
- accept it after minor revisions;
- return it to the author for substantial revisions;
- send it for re-review (in the event of significant changes);
- reject the manuscript.

If necessary, authors receive detailed comments and recommendations from the reviewers to improve the manuscript. After revision, the article is reviewed again by the editorial board and, in some cases, sent back to the reviewers.

Once a positive decision has been made, the manuscript undergoes final scientific and technical editing, verification of the accuracy of references, the bibliography, figures and tables, and compliance with the journal’s style. Only after these procedures have been completed is the article accepted for publication.

The total review period is 4–8 weeks, although this depends on the complexity of the material, the workload of the reviewers and the quality of the initial submission.