1. The corresponding author submits the manuscript via the CMP Online Submission System. At this stage, authors are encouraged to suggest appropriate reviewers for their manuscript by providing their names and email addresses in the comments section.

2. The Assistant Editor examines the structure, spelling, and compliance of the manuscript with all submission requirements. If not compliant, then the manuscript is either rejected or suggested by the Assistant Editor to be brought into compliance with the requirements and then resubmitted again.

3. At the next stage, the manuscript is transferred to the Associate Editor, who assesses its scientific quality and relevance, the level it matches the journal's scope and its potential interest for readers. Manuscripts not matching these criteria are rejected by the Associate Editors without peer reviewing. Such manuscripts are not qualified for further consideration and their resubmission is not possible.

4. The manuscript, which complies with the journal requirements, is sent by the Associate Editor for blind peer review to two referees. The choice of peer-reviewers is based on their expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and previous experience. The Author’s suggestions may or may not be used. The Associate Editor can also engage a Section Editor on this stage. In that case, the Section Editor undertakes the peer review duties.

5. The invited reviewers should accept indispensable terms and conditions, in order to exclude any conflicts of interests, confirm their competence, related to the scope of the manuscript. If the referee agrees on undertaking reviewing, he/she also agrees upon definite time deadline for the report. Otherwise, the alternative reviewers could be suggested.

6. The Associate/Section Editor examines the Referees' Reports and, depending on their recommendations, take the decision to accept or to decline the manuscript or to initiate the second round of peer review procedure. After each round of reviewing the anonymized Referees’ Reports and the Associate Editor’s decision are sent to the corresponding Author.

7. If the second round is required, the Authors are asked to provide the revised version of the manuscript alongside with the response letter addressing the Referee’s comments and questions, as well as the list of changes being made to the manuscript. The revised manuscript and this letter are then forwarded to the Referees for the second round of peer reviewing. The Authors can also provide additional confidential letter intended for the Editors only. In the case of contradiction between two available reports, the Associate/Section Editor can invoke an additional reviewer. When the second round of reviewing is completed, the Associate Editor takes the final decision about the manuscript acceptance/rejection.

8. For the accepted manuscript, the publication process now starts, whereas rejected manuscripts are archived. Authors can appeal against the Associate Editor’s decision, providing their own arguments and explanations. In this case, the final decision is taken by the Editorial Board of the journal.