Peer Review Process

Articles initially accepted for publication are then peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers.

In selecting reviewers, the editorial board makes sure that there is no conflict of interests between them and the author. 

For an article to be accepted for publication, it must receive two positive reviews.

If the reviewers’ opinions diverge as to whether the article should be published, then the third reviewer is requested to assess it.

Reviews are prepared based on special review forms (Double-Blind Peer-Reference Form)

After receiving the review, the author is required to give his or her opinion about the reviewers’ remarks and introduce changes they have suggested. If the author does not agree with some of the suggestions made by the reviewers, the editorial board has the final say regarding the publication of the text.

After receiving positive reviews, the editorial board decides to publish the article in a specific issue.

Reviewers’s responsibilities

1. The peer referee shall disclose to the Editor any conflict of interest. The peer referee shall decline the reference upon the discovery of any conflict of interest and shall inform the Editor about such instances.
2. The peer referee shall treat received documents as confidential.
3. The peer referee shall be impartial in their evaluation of the submission.
4. The peer referee shall provide the Editors with information that will allow them to make an informed decision concerning the publication of the material.
5. The peer referee shall express his or her views clearly and unambiguously.
6. The peer referee shall provide the Author with relevant information allowing him or her to revise her contribution to meet the highest standards of academic quality or to improve their writing in the future.
7. The peer referee shall deliver his or her review promptly or shall notify the Editor about any circumstances that prevent him or her from the timely delivery of the review.
8. The referee is obliged to identify insufficient identification of sources or potential plagiarism, of which cases the referee shall notify the Editor.

Double-Blind Peer-Reference Form (WSN):

Please, fill in all of the fields of the evaluation form below:

Content-to-title conformity

Originality of the subject-matter

Research method applied in the article

Research value of the work and correctness of conclusions

General quality of the submission

Choice and extent of the use of bibliographical material

Composition and clarity

Linguistic and stylistic correctness

Quality and choice of illustrations

Correspondence between the summary and the content of the article

Reviewer’s opinion

Information for the author: