Peer Review Process

Submitting the article, the Author agrees to have it reviewed according to the standards of double-blind peer review outlined below.

The first stage of the review procedure is a preliminary formal evaluation conducted by the Editorial Board (internal review), the results of which are communicated to the Author. If corrections are needed, the Author is asked to introduce them before the article is sent out for external review.

The selection of external reviewers is guided by principles of ethics and professional standards. Reviewers should be experts in the field with significant academic achievements. They should not be connected with the Author by professional or personal relations to avoid conflict of interest. Reviewers are obliged to meet the deadlines and be honest. Reviews which do not meet formal requirements (e.g. reviews without essential elements indicated in the review form, reviews containing praise or criticism without adequate justification) cannot be accepted by the Editorial Board.

To ensure fair and unbiased evaluation of submitted manuscripts, the name of the Author is deleted from the text, together with other information identifying the Author. The principle of mutual anonymity is applied, which entails that Reviewers are unaware of the identity of the Authors, and Authors are also unaware of the identity of Reviewers. The Editorial Board, the Author and the Reviewers are obliged to maintain discretion and confidentiality. They cannot arrange opinions, consult one another, or influence each other’s opinions. 

The Author is provided access to the texts of the anonymous reviews and is asked to make the suggested corrections. On the basis of the reviews and the Author’s response to them, the Editor in Chief and the Deputy Editor make the final determination on the acceptance or rejection of the article.

An alphabetical list of reviewers for a particular year is available on the journal’s website at the end of the year.