Information for Reviewers

A review is primarily aimed at determining the scientific, substantive value of an article, its originality and contribution to the development of the discipline with which it deals. The final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a text is made by the editor-in-chief based on the opinions of reviewers.

A reviewer evaluates a work in the electronic publication system of the journal in the ‘Review form’ tab.

We would like to remind you that our reviewers remain anonymous during the review process and after its completion (double-blind review).

Before starting the peer-review process

  1. Make sure that there is no conflict of interest – a reviewer is required to make a relevant statement, and if  a conflict is suspected, an invitation to give a review should not be accepted.
  2. Familiarise yourself with the Code od ethics of the Editor, particularly the rules for reviewers: the principle of communication with the editorial board, timeliness, reliability, objectivity, verification of scientific integrity, confidentiality and counteracting a conflict of interest.

What do we expect from our reviewers?

The main task of a reviewer is to participate in the article’s evaluation process and to make a decision (together with other reviewers and representatives of the editorial board) whether to accept a manuscript for publication or reject it.

An equally important task of a reviewer is to help an author understand how to improve their article so that it presents the research project as accurately as possible and attracts the widest possible audience. From this point of view, the reviewer is the author’s ally in striving to improve the researcher’s technique and scientific communication.

Dear Reviewer!

  • Be constructively critical – when stating that a section of an article (for example, the abstract) needs revision, add more detailed information about what is imperfect and how to fix it.
  • Be concise – provide specific, clearly formulated messages.
  • Be polite – be the kind of reviewer you wish for yourself; even negative comments can be delivered delicately, respecting the authors; each time you make critical remarks, try to suggest ways to improve the manuscript.
  • Highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the article!

We support a reviewer’s work at every stage

The review system enables a reviewer to communicate with the editorial board. We encourage you to contact the editor-in-chief and solve any emerging problems on an ongoing basis.

If a reviewer has doubts about research data or their interpretation, the editorial board may require the author to provide raw data.

When submitting a review, a reviewer may attach an additional, confidential comment to the editors in the system. This comment will not be visible to the authors.

Working with the OJS system

To make a review, you need to log into the OJS system, using the link contained in the e-mail sent by the editorial board, or log into your account (if you created one before being asked for a review).

After reading the abstract of the article, make a decision whether to agree to review the article (accept and approve by clicking ‘save and finish the task’). Acceptance will allow you to download the file with the article, which can be found in the ‘Manuscript details’ tab, and open the ‘Assessment form’. It is important to uncheck ‘save and complete the task’ after reviewing.

A reviewer can choose not to evaluate an article at any stage of this process if they suspect a potential conflict of interest.

The invitation to act as a reviewer means that the editors of the journal have recognised you as an expert in a specific field and appreciated your scientific achievements. Thank you for accepting our invitation to cooperate!