Policy regarding peer review

Reviewing procedure:

  1. An editorial team pre-selects received texts according to the criteria of their compliance with the required topic and profile of the journal, and evaluates whether they fulfil the fundamental criteria of scientific integrity and care about the facts.
  2. Each pre-selected text undergoes, at the following stage, assessment by at least two independent reviewers from outside of the author’s scientific unit.
  3. Review process is double-blind, which means that the author doesn’t know the reviewer’s name and the reviewer doesn’t know the author’s name.
  4. Each review must be made in a special written form, where, apart from the assessment’s summary, a descriptive assessment can be presented.
  5. Each review must include one of the following unambiguous conclusions:
    1. The article can be printed as it is;
    2. The article can be printed once adjustments suggested by the reviewer are made;
    3. The article can be printed provided that adjustments suggested by the reviewer are made and that the text is re-evaluated;
    4. The article cannot be printed.
  6. Instead of disclosing the names of the reviewers of specific texts, we publish exclusively a collective list of reviewers for a given annual.
  7. A text which receives two positive reviews is eligible for printing if the recommendations included in those reviews are followed. The editorial team is entitled to enclose to the reviewers’ notes their own comments, proposed adjustments or additions.
  8. If the reviews contradict each other, and in other justified cases, the editorial team can designate another reviewer or start a discussion about the text and vote on whether to approve or reject it.
  9. Editors may ask the author for consultation at various stages of the publishing process; before the final publication of the volume, the article will be submitted for author’s proofreading.