Peer Review Process

  • Each manuscript is assigned an individual number that is used in all correspondence regarding the publication process.
  • Each submission is initially screened by Editor-in-Chief for its novelty and correspondence to the journal scope. Manuscripts that don’t suit the journal scope or lacking in originality may be declined by Editor-in-Chief and returned to the authors without review.
  • The journal uses a closed single-blinded peer review system.
    Editor-in-Chief appoints a minimum of 2 Reviewers from institutions other than the authors affiliation and handles the review process. Authors are requested to suggest potential Reviewers of their manuscript. However, final selection of Reviewers is made exclusively by Editor-in-Chief.
  • The review has a written form. The evaluation sheet is placed on the journal website …
  • The Reviewer submits the evaluation sheet to the Editorial Office with a statement proposing either paper rejection or paper acceptance with one of the following options:
    • in the form as submitted,
    • after editorial corrections,
    • after essential improvements agreed with the reviewer,
    • if thoroughly rewritten and reviewed again,
    • if supplemented with additional investigations, rewritten and reviewed again.
  • Following the receipt of the reviews containing a unanimous conclusion with respect to the paper acceptance or rejection the Editor-in-Chief takes up a decision about the paper acceptance or rejection. The Editorial Office releases to Authors part of the review justifying the decision about publication, without information about the Reviewers.
  • The Editorial Office asks Authors of the contribution to introduce relevant correction and enhancements suggested by Reviewers and/or Editorial Office. Based on the obtained recommendations from Reviewers and response of Authors, Editor-in-Chief makes an ultimate decision about acceptance of the manuscript or its rejection for publication.
  • Editor-in-Chief may appoint an Editor with expertise in the relevant field, who is fully responsible for further handling the paper and giving an ultimate decision about its acceptance or rejection.
  • The review process should not exceed the period of 3 months.
  • Once a year the Editorial Office places on the journal website an up-to-date list of collaborating Reviewers.