Review Process
The texts submitted by the authors for publication are initially assessed in terms of formal and content-related aspects by the scientific editorial staff of the journal. The editorial team decides which issue will include the submitted article / review / conference report. Scientific articles should fit into the philological and humanistic profile of the journal; in addition, they should be independent and creative, broadening the state of research. The editorial office reserves the right to edit the submitted materials. Moreover, in the case of a negative or ambiguous editorial opinion, the text is sent for another evaluation. Articles with two negative reviews will not be included in the issue. Authors of texts not accepted for publication will be informed about it immediately after the review is received by the editorial office.
Key points of the journal’s policy:
- To evaluate each submitted text, the Editorial Board appoint two independent reviewers from institutions other than the institution of the author.
- In the case of texts written in a non-native language, at least one reviewer is affiliated in an institution in a country other than that of the author’s nationality.
- The identity of the reviewed authors is not disclosed to reviewers, nor vice versa (double-blind peer review).
- The reviewers are appointed in such a way as to avoid any conflict of interest (COI; COI is understood as relations between the author and the reviewer: personal relations like kinship, legal relations, conflict, subordination in a workplace; direct scholarly co-operation in the period of two years preceding the reviewing process).
- The review must take a written form and must contain an unequivocal conclusion as to whether the manuscript should be accepted for publication or rejected.
- The rules of accepting and rejecting manuscripts are made publicly known on the journal’s website.
- The names of reviewers of particular contributions are not disclosed; once a year the journal announces a general list of reviewers for the given issue.
Review template:
