All submitted papers which meet the qualitative and formal criteria for peer-reviewed sections are thoroughly evaluated by at least two reviewers.
Prior to passing a paper on to reviewers, all submitted papers will be evaluated by the chief editor with regard to meeting formal requirements, incl. style, footnotes, structure, etc. If a paper complies with all formal requirements, it is referred for the peer review process. If a paper does not satisfy the formal criteria, the chief editor may reject it even without the peer review process, or he/she may, of his/her own accord and prior to the commencement of the peer review process, invite the author to improve the paper.
The peer review process is double-blind, i.e. reviewers are unaware of the author’s identity and vice versa. The anonymity of the paper is safeguarded by removing from the text all information from which it would be possible to deduce the name of the author.
People who can be reviewers are required to be experts in the field which the paper concerns, primarily from among scholars or researchers, and/or people outside the academic or scientific sphere but with a considerable professional reputation. Reviewers evaluating manuscripts should come from various institutions and at the same time they must not be from the same institution as the author of the paper under evaluation. (For more details, see the Code of Ethics)
The time limit for elaborating peer review reports is 30 calendar days at the maximum. After the time lapses to no effect, the editorial team may request that the peer review report be made by a substitute reviewer.
Reviewers evaluate papers in accordance with criteria relevant to the section for which the paper is intended. A reviewer may suggest that the editorial team move the paper into a different section. A decision on the ultimate inclusion of the paper in a respective section rests with the editorial team, or more precisely with the chief editor.
In their reports, reviewers will express their opinion on whether the paper should be accepted for publishing, returned to the author for revising, or rejected. The final decision on the publishing of a submitted paper, as well as on its inclusion in a section, is made by the chief editor. In questionable cases, the chief editor consults the Editorial Board, whose members are presented with the obtained peer review reports.
If it is recommended in the peer review process that the paper be revised, the editorial team will inform the author of suggestions and recommendations made by the reviewers. Should the paper be rejected as early as in the first round of the peer review process, it cannot be advanced to the second round even after it has been revised.
In the second round, the reviewers may only recommend that the paper be accepted for publication or rejected. If they are positive about the acceptance, they may only suggest minor stylistic modifications and the correction of typing and grammar errors. The third round of the peer review process does not take place.
The editorial team will notify the author of the submitted paper of its final opinion on publication, incl. reasoning. If the paper has been rejected in the peer review process, the editorial team will also inform the author of the reviewers’ standpoints.