Peer-review process

The review process consists of the following steps:

1. The author sends the article to the specified email.

2. The editor-in-chief, the secretary-in-charge or one of the editorial boards check the article for compliance with the formal requirements (formatting, citation and reference list, article structure, etc., as required by the articles). The article is also checked for plagiarism. If plagiarism is detected, the article is rejected immediately and not submitted for review. The editor-in-chief evaluates the article to be original, interesting, methodologically developed. If it is not in the article, it can also be rejected.

3. If the article meets the requirements of design, is clearly structured, does not contain plagiarism, original and methodically developed, then the editor-in-chief sends the article to two anonymous reviewers who are specialists in the subject of the article.

4. Potential anonymous reviewers are familiar with the content of the article, carry out their own expertise, a prerequisite: no conflict of interest. They may accept or decline the invitation to be reviewers. The editor-in-chief then looks for other potential reviewers. Reviewing can take anywhere from 3 to 6 months.

5. Anonymous reviewers submit their reviews to the editor-in-chief, with a recommendation to accept or reject the article. Reviewers may also recommend correcting the article, taking into account their comments and wishes, after which the article may be recommended for publication.

6. The Editor-in-Chief with the members of the Editorial Board shall review all submitted reviews for a final decision. If the reviews are very different from one another, the editor-in-chief submits the article to a third anonymous reviewer.

7. The Editor-in-Chief sends the decision to the author by e-mail, together with relevant comments from anonymous reviewers.

8. If the article is accepted, it remains with the editor-in-chief to include it in the journal. If the article is rejected or needs to be revised, then the editor-in-chief informs the author with the substantiated conclusions of the anonymous reviewers and their wishes to improve the quality and level of the article. If the article has been submitted to the author for revision, then the article is sent to the reviewer again so that he or she can evaluate the corrected article. However, if the comments were minor, then the editor-in-chief may appreciate their consideration.