This journal applies double blind peer-reviewing, which means that during the review process, the identities of both the reviewer and the author are anonymised.
Guided by the set assessment criteria, reviewers evaluate whether the manuscript can be accepted without corrections, with minimal or major corrections, or whether it should be rejected. A fundamental component of any review process is the objective assessment of both the technical accuracy of the submission but also of its theoretical contribution.
The editor-in-chief of the journal first of all checks the received articles to ensure they adhere to the formal requirements listed in the Guidelines for Authors. The editor, consulting with two other members of the Editorial Board if needed, chooses two reviewers to conduct double blind peer-reviewing. When selecting reviewers, two main criteria must be strictly followed. First, reviewers must have no conflicts of interest with the article’s author(s), and second, the reviewer must have competency in the topic of the article under review. Reviewers do not know the identity of the author, nor the author of the reviewers. The editor-in-chief communicates directly with authors and reviewers during the anonymous review process.
If a reviewer agrees to review the article, they are sent the article along with a review form. The form will have standardised questions and possible answers (yes/no), along with space left for a more extensive assessment of the article’s positive and negative aspects. The reviewer enters their final decision on the form as to whether they recommend the article for publication or not, and provides comments regarding the extent of correction needed. Depending on the circumstances, more time may be given to make corrections to the article. If needed, the corrected version of the article is once again peer-reviewed. If the opinions of both reviewers regarding the article’s publication differ, a third reviewer may be approached. Taking into account the reviewer’s conclusions, the final decision regarding the article’s reviewing is made by the editor-in-chief. The editor-in-chief may consult with the Editorial Board concerning decisions on the article at all stages of its review.
Source publications and book reviews are not peer-reviewed. Despite this, their appropriateness for the journal is always assessed by the Editorial Board.