:: PRELIMINARY DISCLAIMER (mandatory first paragraph) :: This review is intended only to help the authors improve the paper and should not be treated as an expert or official opinion. :: BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND FORMAL CHECKS (execute first, before scientific evaluation) :: Title and authors Write the exact title and the author(s), both in bold. Affiliation check Verify that authors have provided affiliations, country, and email. Report missing items explicitly. Abstract check Confirm presence of a proper English abstract and a short Slovenian abstract that ends with a period. Note any deficiencies. Title case and section case Verify that the main title is in title case and that all section and subsection titles are in sentence case (journal template requirement). List any violations. Headers Confirm that every page has proper left and right headers; none should be empty or anomalous. Tables, figures, and references consistency Check that all tables and figures are mentioned in the text and vice versa. Check that all references from the reference list are cited in the text and vice versa. Check that all references in the reference list exist (valid DOIs or verifiable sources). Check that reference citations appear in proper sequential order (1, 2, 3 …). Report results of these four checks clearly. :: MAIN SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION (required section headings in bold) :: Technical Contribution and Originality Detailed assessment of what is technically new, how original the contribution is, and how it relates to the closest existing work. Name specific similar papers with full titles and authors when they exist. If a closely related paper was published previously, state the similarity and give the full title and authors. Innovation Evaluation Dedicated assessment of the degree of innovation and the extent to which the work advances the current state of the art. Avoid overusing the words “innovative”, “novel”, or “groundbreaking”. Methodology and Replicability Detailed assessment of clarity, completeness, and reproducibility. Explicitly list missing details that prevent exact replication. Suggest concrete additional tests, analyses, or methodological improvements where appropriate. Related Work and Citations Assessment of the literature review, citation quality, relevance of individual references, and sequential order of citations. Explicitly point out any references that appear to have been included mainly for citation count rather than genuine relevance. Experimental Evaluation / Results Assessment of experiments, choice of datasets and baselines, statistical validity, ablation studies, and depth of analysis. Refer to concrete sections, tables, or figures when pointing out problems. Presentation and Clarity Structure, figures, tables, equation numbering, headers, and overall readability. Language Evaluation Specific assessment of English language quality, grammar, style, and clarity. If the language quality is insufficient, include the mandatory sentence: “Informatica encourages active use of LLMs to improve English if no native speaker can be obtained.” Specific Comments and Suggestions Comment 1 (actionable, refer to section/table/figure) Comment 2 … Recommendation Conclude with exactly one of the following written in bold: Minor revisions Major revisions Rejection Summary Evaluation A coherent summary of at least five sentences that brings together the main strengths, weaknesses, and overall impression of the manuscript. :: STRUCTURED OVERALL EVALUATION (choose exactly one option for each item) :: Does the paper contain new and relevant scientific information? Chosen option: 1 - Yes / 2 - No How do you rate the scientific content of the paper? Chosen option: 1 - High / 2 - Average / 3 - Low Does the paper contain previously unpublished material? Chosen option: 1 - Yes / 2 - No Is the paper properly focused? Chosen option: 1 - Too broad / 2 - Too narrow / 3 - Appropriate Is the paper of appropriate length? Chosen option: 1 - Too long / 2 - Too short / 3 - Appropriate Does the Title give a clear and adequate indication of the content? Chosen option: 1 - Yes / 2 - No Does the introduction give a clear indication to a non-specialist of the relevance of the paper? Chosen option: 1 - Yes / 2 - No Does the paper contain an appropriate "state-of-the-art" section? Chosen option: 1 - Yes / 2 - No Is the relevant literature fairly and adequately cited? Chosen option: 1 - Yes / 2 - No Are all the figures, tables and references referred to in the text? Chosen option: 1 - Yes / 2 - No What is the overall presentation of the topic? Chosen option: 1 - High / 2 - Average / 3 - Low Is the paper likely to have a wider impact and/or be highly cited? Chosen option: 1 - Yes / 2 - No :: INFORMAL NUMERICAL SCORE :: Give an informal score from 1 to 10 (5 = reject, 6 = accept). Explicitly state that this is only your informal feeling. Explain the score in approximately five sentences. :: LANGUAGE ERROR LISTS :: Major grammatical and typing errors List only major grammatical or typing errors (maximum 10). If none exist, write: “No major grammatical or typing errors found.” Small or normal grammatical and typing errors List up to 20 small or normal grammatical or typing errors in the form of short phrases where the error appears and the proposed correction. Also check for blanks appearing before commas, periods, or exclamation marks and report them. If none exist, write: “No small grammatical or typing errors found.” Report up to 10 cases of the patterns “ ,”, “ .”, “ ?”, “ !” – write the word before and the pattern. :: STYLE AND PROCESS RULES (unchanged, kept for completeness) :: The entire review must be written in English. Use clear section headings in bold. Use numbered or bulleted lists for concrete comments. Do not use any HTML tags. Do not begin with a summary or abstract of the paper content. Start directly after the preliminary checks. Maintain a formal, professional, and technical tone. Be polite and constructive; critical remarks must be framed as help for the authors. Base every assessment on established scientific standards expected of SCI-indexed journals. Provide specific, technically detailed, and actionable feedback. Identify both strengths and weaknesses. Refer to concrete sections, tables, or figures whenever pointing out problems.