Review procedure
- At least two independent reviewers from outside the unit are appointed to evaluate each publication.
- The journal has introduced a model of reviewing in which the author(s) and reviewers do not know each other's identity (the so-called "double-blind review process"). In case such a situation occurs (knowledge of identity), the reviewer must sign a declaration of no conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is defined as occurring between a reviewer and an author:
- direct personal relationships (kinship, legal relationship, conflict),
- relations of professional subordination,
- direct scientific cooperation within the last years preceding the preparation of the review. - The review must be in writing and end with an unequivocal conclusion as to whether the article should be accepted for publication or rejected - (Review Form).
- Rules of qualification (or rejection of the publication):
- preliminary positive assessment by the Editor,
- substantive positive review by two independent reviewers,
- qualification of the paper by the Editor after receiving positive reviews from the reviewers,
- submitting to the author for correction,
- publication in the journal. - The author is informed about the result of the review and the final decision on qualification or rejection of the paper. The author may appeal against the decision to reject the manuscript by writing to the Editor within three working days.
- The names of the reviewers of each publication/issue are not disclosed.
- The reviewers are not paid any fees.
Review form (DOC)
Review form (PDF)
Declaration of no conflict of interest (DOC)
Declaration of no conflict of interest (PDF)