Peer Review Process

  1. Each of the proposed articles is preliminarily evaluated by selected members of the editorial board or editors who are specialists in a given field (preselection stage). The text can be accepted, rejected or sent back in order to correct some topic-related or formal aspects.
  2. The academic editor, together with the editorial team, designate two independent reviewers, who are given the texts without the personal data of the author (in accordance with the double-blind review procedure).
  3. The review is written by the reviewers on a form (the form is supplied below) and includes the evaluation of following elements:

- content-related evaluation (with a particularly strong emphasis on the accordance with the journal's profile and the proposed topic (where articles and theses are concerned), the value of the content; reference to theory and the state of research, methodological accuracy, level of application, clarity and transparency of the text;

- formal evaluation (including language and stylistic accuracy, selection and use of literature, correctness of references to literature and a bibliography in accordance with the editing requirements, the abstract's compatibility with editing requirements.

On the basis of the above mentioned criteria, the reviewer concludes and justifies whether the article:

  • Can be published without changes,
  • The text can be accepted, but after some corrections,
  • The text cannot be published
  • The text might be published in another journal.
  1. The content of the review shall not be revealed to 3rd parties, in compliance with the ethical guidelines.
  2. After receiving the review, the editor in chief makes the final decision concerning the publishing of the piece.
  3. The authors are informed about the final decision by the editorial assistant.
  4. An alphabetical list of the reviewers is available on the journal's website and is published in the previous issue of the journal. 

Criteria for rejecting articles:

1. The text may be rejected at the pre-selection stage due to a lack of connection with the thematic scope of the journal and due to formal deficiencies.
2. The text may be rejected at the editorial stage due to negative reviews or the lack of a positive assessment by the anti-platform system.