Peer review process

The procedure for reviewing submitted articles complies with the guidelines of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. 
The review form can be downloaded from the journal’s website.

1. Articles submitted to the Editorial Office are first evaluated by the editors with regard to their scholarly content and formal requirements. Manuscripts containing obvious errors (non-compliant formatting, missing references, or evidently low academic quality) will be rejected at this stage.
2. Manuscripts that are preliminarily accepted are forwarded to two independent reviewers.
3. The review process is conducted according to the double-blind review procedure (authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other), as recommended by the Ministry.
4. A potential reviewer receives the abstract or the full anonymised manuscript and decides, within a specified time frame, whether to accept or decline the invitation to review.
5. Reviewers are obliged to treat all information concerning the manuscript as confidential and must not use any knowledge of its content prior to publication.
6. The review must be submitted in written form and must conclude with an explicit recommendation regarding acceptance or rejection of the manuscript for publication. The reviewer may formulate their recommendation as follows:  
The article may be published  
(a) without revisions,  
(b) with revisions not requiring further review,  
(c) with revisions requiring further review;  
or: the article is not suitable for publication.
7. The reviewer prepares a written evaluation using the review form available on the journal’s website and submits the signed review to the journal electronically (as a scanned copy of the original).
8. The Editorial Board does not accept reviews that do not meet the substantive and formal standards of scholarly peer review. Reviewers’ comments (if any) are forwarded to the author. For the author, all reasonable and substantiated comments are obligatory: the author must consider all remarks and revise the manuscript accordingly.
9. The author has the right to comment on the reviewer’s remarks in cases where they disagree with them.
10. The Editor-in-Chief, with the support of the Editorial Board, makes the final decision regarding publication based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the author’s comments, and the final version of the manuscript.