Received papers are subject to peer review. The goal of the review is to help the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board in deciding which paper should be accepted.
Reviews are doubly anonymous – the identity of the author is unknown to the reviewers and vice versa. The identity of the reviewers remains unknown to the authors and vice versa before, during and after the review process.
Reviewers should not know the identity of other reviewers. If the decisions of the reviewers are not the same, the Editor-in-Chief or his deputy may request additional review from other reviewers.
The choice, deadline and method of review are at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief and his deputy. Reviewers should be competent persons in the areas for which the review is given. Reviewers should adhere to a code of ethics.
In the review, the reviewers should answer key questions related to the submitted papers. Their opinion with a conclusion on the suitability of the work to be published forms an integral part of the review form.
Reviews must not be used for personal gain.
In case the authors have serious and well-founded objections to the review, the Editor-in-Chief and his deputy will check whether the review is objective and meets academic standards. If there is any doubt about the objectivity or quality of the review, they will seek the opinion of other reviewers.