Peer-review process
A declaration form stating the paper has not been published before or is not being proceeded by another journal as well as there is no conflict of interest with respect to any of the parties, should be attached to the paper (tab "For Authors and Reviewers" | "Documents - Authors"). The author also declares that submitted article as well as all studies were conducted with respect of ethical principles and standards described by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics and the International Academy of Nursing Editors (tab "For Authors and Reviewers" | "Documents - Authors"). If the article has been previously published there must be a written consent for republication provided - from both the previous publisher and the co-authors of the original work. The author also defines his contribution to the paper according to criteria given in the form. Responsibility for the credibility of the information contained in the form rests with the Authors of the paper, who are obliged to send the Authorization Criteria Form by name (tab "For Authors and Reviewers" | "Documents - Authors").
Received manuscripts are initially examined by the Editorial Board. Manuscripts with insufficient priority for publication as well as in complete or which do not adhere to the rules, will be sent back (rejected) to the authors without rating. Manuscripts fulfilling basic conditions of publication are registered and submitted to the two independent reviewers. The reviews will be forwarded to the authors, who are asked to respond to them. After receiving positive reviews, the editors qualify the work for publication. The author receives an article for author's corrections. Revision of the author should be returned to the Editor within three working days. Otherwise the article is withdrawn from the magazine. Changes in the correction of the author’s version are placed under the responsibility of the author.
Basic principles of reviewing in the journal
- For the evaluation of each publication shall be appointed at least two independent reviewers from outside the unit.
- The journal introduced a model of reviews, in which the author(s) and reviewers do not know their identities (so-called ‘double-blind peer review process’). In case that this happens (knowledge of identity data eg. due to very limited scope of the research described) the reviewer must sign a declaration of no conflict of interests. For conflict of interest it is deemed to occur between the reviewer and the author of: a) direct personal relationships (kinship, legal relationships, conflict), b) professional reporting relationships, c) direct scientific cooperation in the past two years preceding the preparation of review..
- The review must be prepared in writing and leads to an explicit conclusion as regards the approval of the article for publication or rejection. Reviews are prepared on a form (tab "For Authors and Reviewers" | "Documents - Reviewers").
- In case that a given article receives divergent reviews (one positive, the other negative), a third reviewer is appointed, whose review is conclusive.
- Eligibility rules (or rejection of publication): a) the initial positive assessment of the editor, b) substantive positive review from two independent reviewers, c) the correction of the author, d) publication of the article.
- The author is informed of the outcome of the review and final decision on eligibility or rejection of work.
- The names of reviewers of individual publications/numbers are not disclosed. Once a year the journal gives on it's website a list of reviewers who prepared reviews last year.