Review Process

The Editors of the journal are responsible for deciding which of the submitted manuscripts should be published. They do so based on their own judgement, two single-blind peer-reviews, and discussion in the Editorial board. They evaluate manuscripts solely for their intellectual content and topicality. No other criteria are considered when evaluating the manuscripts. The decision to accept a manuscript is based on its importance, originality, clarity of presentation, and the relevance to the academic aims and standards pursued by the journal. The Editors are committed to handling all submissions in a fair and timely manner.

Procedure

Manuscripts are treated as confidential and peer-reviewers’ identities are protected.

First stage: Articles are evaluated by the journal’s Editors, as well as the guest editor(s) in the case of thematic issues. If they fail to meet the academic standards of the journal or do not comply with the formal requirements specified in the Submission Guidelines, they are returned to authors either for resubmission or with a statement of reasons for rejection.

Second stage: Manuscripts are evaluated by peer-reviewers who are internationally recognized specialists in the field. Their identity is never disclosed to the authors and readers. On the contrary the identity of the authors is known to the reviewers. In case of a significant discrepancy in the peer-reviewers’ evaluation, another reviewer is invited. Evaluation results are anonymized and communicated to authors. The review forms include final judgement: acceptance – refusal – requirement of corrections. This section is binding for the authors. The reviews may also contain specific proposals for improvement of the manuscript. The authors are not obliged to follow all of them but should explain their reasons for not doing so.

Third stage: The adequacy of improvements done by the authors is judged in the first place by the Editors, who may consult peer-reviewers if they are in doubt. The final approval of publishing or decision on rejection is given by the Editorial board. Both the Editors or the Editorial board my require further improvements to the text. Submissions classified as unpublishable even after substantial rewriting are rejected with no possibility to appeal.

A manuscript can be retracted from the editorial process without recourse at any stage if serious problems (academic misconduct, erroneous information, or interpretation) are discovered. If they are revealed after the publication, the Editors are obliged to publish corrections and the article can be withdrawn from the on-line publication.

Peer-reviewers
Peer-reviewers should do their best to improve the quality of articles by evaluating them carefully, objectively, and timely. It is their duty to inform the Editors of any suspected plagiarism. They are asked to declare any existing or potential conflicts of interest related to a particular article or author. The reviewers vow to conduct themselves in strict observance of research ethics, particularly in view of them knowing the identity of the authors and of being confined other researchers’ unpublished data. Confidentiality should be respected during all stages of the review process. Guidance to peer-reviewers is provided by the Editors and constantly updated.

Authors
By submitting a manuscript, the authors declare it to be an original piece of their work and that content quoted or paraphrased from other sources is cited appropriately to avoid plagiarism. All authors must be clearly stated, depending on the extent and nature of their contribution to the work, either as members of the Author team, in captions of figures, tables of graphs, or in Acknowledgement. The authors must declare any existing or potential conflicts of interest. It is their duty to ensure that the submitted article is not being considered for another publication. Authors have the right to appeal against editorial decisions to the Editors.