PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Privileged information obtained through peer review must be kept confidential (during review and post review) and not used for personal benefit. The Reviewer’s comments against each invited manuscript should be technical, professional and objective. They Reviewers should make a review and send the review to the Editorial Committee. The Reviewers can refuse to review a work without giving a specific reason notify.

Article acceptance/rejection criteria

In the event of positive evaluation given by both Reviewers, or one positive and one indicating the need to make changes, the Editorial Office makes a decision to send the text for publication on condition that the Author introduces the changes and amendments required by one of the Reviewers.

In the event of one negative review, the text may be referred for decisive re-evaluation by a third, independent reviewer.

1. The Authors who submit the text for publication agree to activities related to the generally accepted procedure and the rules of reviewing.
2. In case of texts written in a foreign language, at least one Reviewer must be affiliated in a foreign institution (coming from the other country than the Author).
3. The Editors’ Office evaluates the articles with respect to their integrity. Then, two independent Reviewers are appointed to evaluate the article. The Reviewers are not a part of the Scientific Council of the journal and are not employed by the entity responsible for publishing the journal. Affiliation of the Author of the text cannot coincide with the affiliation of the Reviewers who evaluate the text.
4. In the process of reviewing, the principle of ”double-blind review process” applies. It means that the Reviewers and the Authors do not know each other’s identities; otherwise a Reviewer will sign a declaration of no conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is defined as the occurrence of direct personal relationship between the Reviewer and the Author (in particular consanguinity to the second degree and matrimony), professional subordination relations or direct scientific cooperation in the last two years preceding the review.
5. The review will be conducted in writing.
6. The opinion of the Reviewer about the article informs about:
   a. rejection of the article,
   b. admission for the publication without amendments,
   c. admission for publication after amendments suggested by the Reviewer
7. Conditions for admission or rejection of the publication are available on the journal website.
8. The authors of the article are informed about the outcome of the review process.
9. The names of the Reviewers of articles, published in particular volumes of the journal, are not disclosed. A list of the Reviewers cooperating with the journal is published on the website.

Review form (download)