Peer-review process
- An article can be rejected by the Editorial Board without seeking the opinion of reviewers on the basis of an internal evaluation prepared by the relevant member(s) of the Editorial Board if it does not fit the profile of the Journal, does not meet minimum quality standards, or does not comply with the editorial requirements provided in the Instructions/Guidelines for Authors, available at the Journal’s website.
- Articles are reviewed by two independent experts representing the same scholarly area to which the subject of the article relates. Reviewers should have significant scientific achievements in the subject area of the article. Reviewers are not part of the Journal’s editorial staff and are from outside the institution in which the Editor-in-chief of the Journal is affiliated.
- The reviewing process follows the model of double-blind review. Reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors and vice versa – Authors are unaware of the identity of reviewers. In any case, a reviewer is obliged to sign a declaration stating that there is no conflict of interest A conflict of interest between the reviewer and the Author occurs if there: A) is a direct personal relationship (kinship, legal relationships, conflicts); B) exists a relationship of professional subordination; C) has been direct scientific cooperation in the past two years preceding the preparation of the review.
- Reviews should be submitted according to a written format and must be prepared in an objective manner. A reviewer’s task is to fill in a reviewing form, which consists of a short questionnaire and a reviewer’s comment. Personal criticism of an Author is unacceptable. Reviewers ought to provide the Author with their clear, constructive, and detailed opinions in a way that allows the Author to respond to the comments contained in a review. A review has to end with an explicit conclusion as to whether the article should be published in its original form, after taking into account suggested amendments, or should not be accepted for publication.
- Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to prepare an objective opinion or who does not have time to prepare a review within a specified time frame (two months following the day of taking up the task) should immediately inform the Editorial Board about that and excuse him/herself from the review process.
- Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the Author. A reviewer should also call to the Editorial Board’s attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the reviewed article and any other published works of which they have personal knowledge.
- Where articles, according to the reviewers, require significant adjustments, reviewers have right to request the revised version of an article in order to make a recommendation to accept or reject it.
- In the case of conflicting assessments by appointed reviewers, the article is passed to a third party to review.
- Each reviewed article is covered by the principle of confidentiality in relation to its entire content.
