Peer Review Process
Submitting the article, the Author at the same time agrees to have it reviewed according to the standards established.
After preliminary formal and factual evaluation conducted by the Editorial Board (Editorial Review), the article is sent to two Reviewers. The selection of Reviewers is guided by the principles connected both with the qualifications and professional ethics. A Reviewer shall be an expert in the field, with significant academic achievements, not connected with the Author by a conflict of interest (professional relations, personal relations, conflict).
The Editorial Board signs an agreement with the Reviewer, under which the Reviewer is obliged to meet the deadlines and be honest. Any review which does not meet the formal or factual requirements cannot be accepted by the Editorial Board (e.g. a review without essential elements indicated in the review form, a review containing praise or criticism without adequate justification, a critical review with a positive conclusion).
An article is marked with a code which temporarily replaces the Author’s data and is sent to the Reviewers. The principle of mutual anonymity is applied, which entails that the Author and the Reviewer do not know one another (double-blind review), and the Reviewers do not know each other either. The Editorial Board, the Author and the Reviewers are obliged to maintain discretion and confidentiality within this scope. They cannot arrange opinions, consult one another, or influence each other’s opinions. The list of all reviewers is published alphabetically on the journal's website at the end of the year.
The Author has access to the texts of the reviews without revealing the Reviewers’ names. On the basis of the reviews, the Editor in Chief or the Deputy Editor make the decision as to accept or reject an article for publication. The Author can be asked to make corrections.
An alphabetical list of reviewers is available on the journal's website at the end of the year.