Review Procedure

Received papers are subject to a double anonymous peer review, which means that 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.

The goal of the peer review is to help the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board in making a decision about which work should be accepted.

The Editor-in-Chief forwards the submitted paper to two reviewers, experts in the relevant scientific field. In order to ensure an independent, impartial and objective evaluation, the reviews are not requested from the persons affiliated with the same institution as the author

One reviewer should not know the identity of another reviewer.

The Editor-in-Chief and his deputy can request an additional review by a third competent reviewer if the reviews of two reviewers are different in terms of the possibility and necessity of publishing the submitted paper.

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 not be members of the journal’s Editorial Board.

Reviewers are required to adhere to the 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 publishing the work must be clear and supported by arguments.

A paper sent to a reviewer is considered a confidential document. The reviewer may not use unpublished material from the submitted papers for his research without the express written permission of the author, and the information and ideas presented in the submitted paper must be kept confidential and may 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.