Peer review process
Stage 1. Initial text verification and internal review
The editor-in-chief, in consultation with the editor of the volume, makes an initial assessment of the work and can reject it when it does not meet the editorial requirements, does not meet the criteria for scientific work or the subject matter is not consistent with the profile of the journal.
Stage 2. External review
The manuscript, initially accepted by the editor-in-chief, is sent to two reviewers, who are scientists dealing with the same or related fields of study. In order to avoid suspicions of bias, manuscripts are subjected to a double-blind review procedure, i.e. information that identifies the authors of the publication is removed from the text, while the information sent to the authors contains no information enabling identification of reviewers. The reviewers independently evaluate the publication and submit their comments to the scientific editor. The review should be in writing and contain explicit conclusion either to admit the article to publication or to refuse it.In the event that the reviewers present contradictory opinions, the editor may appoint another, third reviewer. The editor-in-chief - on the basis of the review - decides on:
- rejecting the publication,
- accepting it for publication or
- sending it to the author in order to make corrections.
Stage 3. Text correction and re-review
In the latter case, the editor send to the author(s) the publication together with the text of the review (after removing information on the identity of the reviewers). The author, after receiving a review with critical remarks, approaches them, inserts appropriate changes or additions in the text of the publication. The corrected text of the publication along with the responses to reviewers' comments, is sent back to the editor by the author, after which the scientific editor makes the final decision to reject or accept the work for publication. The final decision about the publication of a scientific article is made by the editorial office based on the analysis of the comments contained in the review and the final version of the article provided by the author. The final version of the article (in PDF format) is sent to the author in order to make the author's correction. Only articles after proofreading are published.