The Board of Editors conduct preliminary verification of the paper. The text is reviewed internally with a particular emphasis on the consistency with the profile of the journal (see bookmark: Mission and objectives of the journal). Then, in case of a positive evaluation, the text is checked against the formatting guidelines of the journal (see bookmark: Guidelines for Authors).
Next the Board of Editors designates two reviewers for each paper and forwards these proposals to the Board of Editors.
According to the guidelines on the review procedure published by the Minister of Education of 29 May 2013 on the criteria and manner of evaluation to be implemented by scientific journals, each publication is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with institutional affiliations other than that of the author. The identity of the author or authors of the manuscript is never disclosed to the reviewers and vice versa (a double-blind review process).
In other situations, the reviewer must sign a declaration of no conflict of interest. This is understood as a situation when there are direct personal relations between the reviewer and the author (especially up to the second degree of kinship, or matrimonial bonds), or there is a reporting relationship between these persons, as well as a situation in which the parties have been involved in research cooperation within two years prior to the preparation of the review.
The reviewers receive texts with the author’s surname deleted and review questionnaires which are available on our website. As required by law, a list of reviewers is published on the journal's website. However, the names of reviewers of specific articles are not revealed. Upon request, the author may obtain access to this list.
The review questionnaire consists of several questions on the basis of which the reviewers give the paper a mark on a scale of 1 to 5 points. There is also space provided for a description and a conclusion in which the reviewers must express their recommendation on whether the paper should be published or rejected by the journal. Two positive reviews are needed for the paper to be published.
Based on the opinion of the Reviewers, the article might be a) accepted for publication without changes, b) conditionally accepted (necessary corrections, cuts or amendments by Author indicated) or c) rejected.
The Editorial Team refuses to publish the article if: a) the essence of the text is not consistent with the profile and quality of the journal (see bookmark: Mission and objectives of the journal); b) the Author has neither moral nor economic rights to the text; c) the text infringes on personal rights of other people (see bookmark: Publication ethics and malpractice statement, chap.“ Additional information about publication ethics”); d) the Author does not agree to introduce the necessary corrections proposed by the Editorial Team.
After the imperfections, which have been indicated by the Reviewers and the Editorial Team, have been removed by the Author, the Editorial Team takes the final decision to accept the text for publication or reject it, and will inform the Author (or the Co-author who is the contact person) about their decision concerning the publication.
After the possible changes, proofreading and initial DTP, the article will be presented to the Author for final proofreading and then be accepted for publication.
Finally, the edited and proofread text is sent to the author for final approval. Should there be only one positive review, the Board of Editors decides whether to publish the paper or to obtain the opinion of another reviewer. Two negative reviews exclude the manuscript from being published in the journal.