Reviewing

All submitted papers are subjects to the following    

1. first editorial review – the editor reserves the right to reject texts that are incompatible with the publication profile or present a low level of content,
2. anonymous, independent dual peer review external to the author's institution of employment (double blind review)

  • authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other
  • peer review is according to (1) originality and value (2) scientific validity in terms of content, form and language
  • review contains recommendations: (1) accept (2) accept pending minor revisions (3) reconsider pending major revisions (4) reject
  • in the case of rejected or contradictory applications for specific reviews, the editors shall decide on whether to take any further editorial action
  • peer reviewers comments and conclusions are sent to authors, who are requested to address themselves to the comments in writing

3. review of statistical analysis – in the case of original work applying advanced statistical methods

The author of the submitted article is informed at all stages of the editors' assessment and decisions.

 

Guide for reviewers / How to conduct a review

 

Reviewers of submitted articles:

2018, 2017, 20162015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006