The procedure for reviewing articles is consistent with the review principles included in the Announcement of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of 29 May 2013 and 2 June 2015 on the criteria and procedure for evaluation of scholarly journals and to the principles of the publication ethics in accordance with the recommendations of COPE - Committee on Publication Ethics.
Submitting a paper for publication in the journal, authors agree to the review process.
Submitted publications are evaluated first by the editors.
Then the publications are reviewed by two reliable reviewers with at least a doctoral degree.
The submitted papers will not be sent to the reviewers from the same institution the author comes and to those who may be in conflict of interest with the author. A conflict of interest occurs when there is a professional relationship (especially one of financial dependence), direct academic collaboration (within the last two years preceding the year of preparing the review) and direct personal relationships (first or second degree blood relations, or relations due to marriage) between the reviewer and the author of the reviewed text. In addition, reviewers are not members of the Editorial Board (editor-in-chief, subeditors or editorial secretary).
The papers undergo a double-blind review process.
An editorial number is assigned to the paper so that the work can be identified at further stages of the publishing process.
Reviewers are obliged to maintain secrecy and confidentiality of all information provided by the Editor. The reviewers are not allowed to use any information about the paper before its publication.
The reviewer should inform the Editor if the reviewed article is similar to any previously published text.
The reviewer prepares a review in electronic form on the OJS platform or completes a review form, which should be sent to the Editor's email address in pdf form. It is also acceptable to send a paper review with a handwritten signature, which is held in the Editorial Office for 5 years.
The review must provide an unambiguous reason why the article was accepted or rejected for publication. Reviews that do not meet the substantive and formal requirements of a scientific review will not be considered. This is also the case with those articles dominated by unfounded critical opinions or praise, and those in which there is a clear contradiction between comments made in the review and a recommendation to publish or not.
The final decision on whether or not to accept the paper for publishing is made by the editor-in-chief on the basis of the analysis of the comments included in the review and the final version of the article provided by the author.
Once a year the editors publish online the updated list of the reviewers with whom they cooperate.
