Peer Review Guidelines
Dear peer reviewers,
We truly appreciate your academic collegiality, as well as your readiness to support the publishing of our scholarly papers with your peer reviews.
Practical Information
The manuscripts are forwarded as Word documents (*.doc or *docx).
All remarks, observations and suggestions are inserted directly in the text in a manner most convenient for reviewers. For clarity reasons, it is important to organise the added material in a consistent manner, clearly separated from the original manuscript, e.g., by using a different font colour, by highlighting the entered passages, and so forth.
If possible, we highly recommend the use of the Review tool, with Track Changes option being switched on.
The reviewed document, including commentaries, notes, etc., can be sent to the Editors anytime during the review process (if necessary, even more than once) until the final assessment is made.
The final assessment is submitted through an online form accessible with a password provided by the Editors. If more convenient, the form is downloadable as a PDF form which when completed can be scanned or forwarded to the Editors by means most convenient for the reviewer.
In case of remarks concerning a given paper that preclude your approval for publication, please consider whether before submitting your final estimate we could send the paper back to its author(s) with your comments for necessary improvements.
Deadlines for the peer review process, including the assessment of the paper following author(s)’ revision are agreed upon according the available time frame, based on academic etiquette and mutual respect.
Ethical Standards
The papers submitted for publishing are sent to double-blind peer review.
The Editors forward all reviewers’ comments, suggestions and other remarks to the author(s) in manners assuring anonymity.
In case that a reviewer anticipates a potential conflict of interest, or that her/his impartiality may be compromised in any way, she/he informs the Editors without delay.
A reviewer must restrain herself/himself from assessing a paper outside of her/his field of competence.
Should a reviewer detect plagiarism or other breach of the established standards of academic ethics and integrity, she/he informs the Editors without delay.
A reviewer treats the forwarded document as confidential. The information and ideas within the paper cannot be used in any way by the reviewer before its publication.
Assessment
Reviewer’s assessment of the paper’s quality is precise and appropriately rationalized.
A peer reviewer gives her/his assessment on the paper’s originality, whether appropriate research methods were used, if the presented data holds academic relevance, whether the conclusions proceed from the presented line of reasoning, they are compatible with the discipline in general and are based on the field’s relevant academic findings.
It is not expected that a peer reviewer agrees with the conclusion presented in the paper. Her/his primary task is to examine whether the author(s) has duly implemented the scholarly apparatus pertinent to the academic field in question.
A peer reviewer does not have to proofread the paper. However, she/he may point out certain linguistic issues, especially concerning the given discipline’s specialised language and terminology.
A peer reviewer is free to suggest the type of the paper in question (Original research; Review article; Short report; Perspective, opinion or commentary).
The final assessment of the peer review process is either to have the paper accepted, considered accepted pending revision, or rejected.