Peer Review Process
Before being accepted for publication, every article undergoes a number of procedures:
1. First, the article is considered by the managing editor, who determines whether the article complies with the general requirements of the journal (its thematic scope, presence of the required metadata, formatting, and the quality of illustrations). If the article fails to meet these requirements, it is not considered further. All articles are checked for plagiarism on submission (parts of text appropriated from other authors or self-plagiarism). To identify plagiarism, the following resources are used: Antiplagiat and iThenticate. The results are carefully analysed whereupon the editors take a decision about the absence or presence of plagiarism in the article.
2. Second, the article is examined by the editor-in-chief before it is submitted to the reviewer. All articles sent to the journal are subject to double-blind peer review, which means that the reviewers have no knowledge of the author’s personal information, and vice versa. The article is reviewed by a specialist in the corresponding field who is either a member of the Editorial Board or Editorial Council of the journal. Whenever needed, the Editorial Board may contact other specialists in the field.
Reviewers check whether the article complies with the thematic and formal criteria of the journal (See: Peer Review Requirements) and publication ethics (See: Editorial Policies). Depending on the results of the review, the article may be accepted for publication without substantial corrections or declined. If the article is declined, the author receives a considered explanation. The article may also require correction and editing, in which case it will only be accepted for publication after all the necessary changes are made. Reviews shall be kept in the electronic archive of the journal for three years. For a complete list of the reviewers of the journal, please consult its website; the list is subject to change.
3. The author does not have to provide any references from their employers (chairs, departments, universities, etc.).
4. If an article is accepted for publication, the authors are contacted by the editor-in-chief of the issue in which the article is to be published. The time between the submission of the article and its publication depends on the topic of the issue, the relevance of the article, the reviewer’s work and the author’s work with the editor. Generally, this process takes between half a year and a year, depending on the aforementioned factors.
5. The article is examined by the publication editor, who will determine whether the text complies with national publication standards and the requirements of the journal, as well as the norms of academic writing.
6. Prior to its publication, the final version of the article shall be sent to the author in order to revise the corrections. After that, no claims shall be reviewed.
Peer Review Requirements
1. Peer review shall only be carried out anonymously and upon request of the Editorial Board. Authors do not participate in the process of peer review.
2. The form of the review may be free or follow the questionnaire (see below). In case of a free-form peer review, the reviewer should cover the relevance of the article and its material, its academic objectivity and comprehensiveness. The reviewer shall also characterise the style of the article and the extent to which the author has studied the existing research in the field.
3. The reviewer shall point out all instances of plagiarism, should they be found in the article. They shall also provide recommendations as to how to improve the article whenever necessary.
4. In case of considerable differences in the reviewers’ opinions of the article, the final decision is made by the editor-in-chief.
5. The author must take the reviewer’s opinion into account. If they strongly disagree, the reasons must be explained to the Editorial Board in written form. The Editorial Board may choose to stand on the side of the reviewer or find another reviewer whenever appropriate.
6. All reviewers work on a voluntary basis and are not paid for their work.