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. A reviewer participates in the article’s evaluation process and their opinion help Editor-in-chief to make final  a decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a text.

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

implements correct layout and clear argumentation. Therefore we ask the reviewers each time they make critical remarks to suggest ways to improve the manuscript. The reviewer should be the author’s ally in striving to improve the researcher’s technique and scientific communication.

Before starting the peer-review process please:

  • 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;
  • familiarise yourself with the publishing ethics of the publisher, 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.

Assessment mode

The reviewer evaluates submission via the publication system – Open Journal Systems, using a review form. The peer-review process is conducted as double-blind review. Therefore our reviewers remain anonymous during the review process and after its completion.

Communication with the Editorial Board

OJS 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.

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.

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