All submissions are peer-reviewed. We practice double blind peer-review, which implies anonymity of both the reviewers and the author.
1. There are two types of peer-review:
• internal (submissions are peer-reviewed by members of the Editorials);
• external (submissions are sent for peer-review by leading experts in the respective academic field).
2. The Volume Editor shall determine if the submission fits the scope and the subjects of the relevant volume, as well as if it is in accordance with the Journal’s format requirements; then the Volume Editor shall determine the type of peer-review (internal or external) and send the submission for a review by two experts with doctoral degree, whose specialization is closest to the subject matter of the submission.
3. The term allocated for the peer-review in each individual case shall be determined by the Volume Editor, ensuring the best conditions for an operative publication of the submission. Usually reviews do not take more than one month. Exceptionally, this can take more time, if finding the relevant reviewer is difficult.
4. A review shall cover the following issues:
• if the content of the submission corresponds to its title;
• if the submission meets modern academic standards;
• if the paper is understandable to the readers in terms of its language, style, arrangement of material, quality and value of tables, diagrams, drawings, etc.;
• if publication of this paper is feasible taking into consideration earlier publications on this topic;
• what is the novelty of the research, its strong and weak points, what changes or additions should be made to it;
• if it meets ethical standards;
• the conclusion regarding the possibility of publication should be given: “recommended”, “recommended for publication with improvements suggested by the reviewer” or “not recommended”.
5. The peer-reviewers are informed that the papers sent to them are a private property of the authors and are confidential. The reviewers are not allowed to make copies of submissions for their own needs. Files in .pdf format sent to reviewers are technically protected: it is not possible to either print out or copy any information from the file.
6. Review is confidential and secret (double blind peer-review). The peer-reviewer receives a paper without the author´s name on it. If the review is negative, its text shall be sent to the author without the reviewer’s signature, name, position and job place mentioned therein. Confidential information can only be disclosed if the reviewer states that the subjects exposed in the submission are unreliable, fabricated or plagiarized.
7. Positive reviews are not sufficient for acceptance of a submission for publication. Final decision on whether a submission is feasible for publication shall be made by the Editorials.
8. If the peer-reviewer suggests that the submission should be refined, it can be returned to the author. In this case, the date of the submission is the date when the refined text is submitted.
9. If the peer-reviewers do not recommend a submission for publication, the reviews and the submission shall be discussed by the Editorials. If the submission is rejected, the Editorials shall send a grounded refusal to the author, with the negative reviews attached thereto, either by email or ordinary mail. In some exceptional cases, the Editorials shall reserve the right to accept the submission for publication or send it to other peer-reviewers upon appeal of a member of the Editorials.
10. After the Editorials accepts the submission for publication, the Volume Editor shall inform the author thereof and also, if necessary, about the need to revise the paper in view of the recommendations suggested by the peer-reviewers and members of the Editorials.
11. The originals of the reviews are kept in the editorial office for one year.
|