Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers will adhere to the criteria of competence, confidentiality, impartiality and honesty, diligence, respect, and kindness. After reviewing a manuscript, they evaluate the fulfilment of the following parameters of work quality:

  • Topic: Is the topic relevant for the journal?
  • Title: is the title clear, precise and compatible with the contents of the paper?
  • Abstract: Is the abstract concise, informative, with defined methodology and aim of the paper?
  • Keywords: Do keywords accurately describe contents of the paper?
  • Introduction: Is the problem presented with an adequate theoretical framework, with defined methodology and aims of the paper?
  • Methodology: Was the methodology properly chosen, and were the results described clearly, without repetition?
  • Tables and Figures: Have the tables and figures been adequately explained?
  • Discussion: Are the interpretations of the results clear and properly formulated, and have the results been discussed critically within the context of set aims, relevant theories and results of related research?
  • References: Is the number of references satisfactory and are they topical and up to date? Are they properly cited in text and in the references list?
  • Language and Writing Style: Is the paper written clearly and linguistically correctly?

Assessments of these parameters are filled in a special review form. Summarizing their overall impression of the work, the reviewers give a descriptive comment, which can be singled out for the editor, and on that occasion, they give one of the recommendations for further handling of the manuscript:

(1) Publish without changes;

(2) Publish with suggested changes – the assessment of the request for changes has been fulfilled is conducted by the editor;

(3) Return for review – after the author's corrections to the paper, the editor once again sends the work to the reviewer for review and evaluation;

(4) Suggest publishing somewhere else;

(5) Text not for publishing.

In case of disagreement between the reviewers' opinions, a third evaluation will be applied, also in a double-blind procedure and respecting the rules of publishing of the journal.

Reviewers are expected to complete the first review within two weeks of receiving the paper for review. Adherence to this deadline is a necessary condition for limiting the total duration of the reviewing procedure to four weeks, and only exceptionally to two months.