The Editorial Board conducts a preliminary evaluation of the text and then appoints two independent reviewers from outside the author's research unit. The review process follows the double-blind review model, ensuring that neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities.
Reviews will be made in writing, using a special review form provided by the Editorial Board, and will conclude with a clear decision to either accept or reject the article for publication.
Requirements for reviewers:
No conflict of interest with the authors (a conflict of interest is considered to be a direct personal relationship between the reviewer and the author: second-degree relationship, a legal, marital or professional relationship, or a direct scientific collaboration within the last two years of preparation reviews);
Having at least a PhD degree;
Recent publications in the relevant field;
Necessary knowledge to assess the quality of the article;
Adherence to standards of professionalism and ethics;
Reputation as a reliable reviewer.
Reviewers cannot be members of the editorial office or the journal’s scientific council.
Reviewers who accept the invitation are requested to submit their review within four weeks, with extensions available upon request.
The reviewers' comments will be sent to the author. The conclusions presented in the review are binding for the author. He is obliged to take into account the recommendations of the reviewers and correct the text. The reviewers have the right to revise the revised article again. If the author disagrees with the reviewers' conclusions, he/she may present his/her position in a polemic note to the Editorial Board.
Revised versions of articles can be sent to reviewers upon their request. Reviewers can access the latest version of the text via the editorial platform.
The Editor-in-Chief, after consulting the Editorial Board and possibly the Scientific Council, makes the final decision on publication. This decision is based on an analysis of the reviewers' comments, any polemics from the author, and the final revised text.Reviewers are obliged to maintain confidentiality regarding their opinions on the reviewed article and must not use the gained knowledge before its publication.
Reviewers are obliged to confidentiality in their opinions on the reviewed article and not to use the knowledge gained on this occasion before its publication.
Reviewers' names for individual articles are not disclosed, but the list of reviewers collaborating with the journal is published annually on the journal’s website.
The review procedure complies with the Committee on Publication Ethics standards.
