Peer review

All submissions are initially reviewed by the editor’s secretary who checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations.

Next,  the submitted article is reviewed by the editor-in-chief and/or any delegated member of the editorial committee who checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further by external reviewers. In some circumstances the editors may decide to consult the article with an appointed  member of the  Scientific Council.

If the article meets substantive and formal criteria it is sent to two independent reviewers invited  by editors who have initially reviewed it.

Both the author of the article and the reviewer remain anonymous during the whole review process (double-blind review process).

Reviewers’ comments are compiled and they either recommend or reject the article. They may also return the article to the author for further revision, and may include guidance for revisions required.

If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision whether to publish the article, request further major or minor revision or reject it.

The editor sends a copy of the review to the author and informs him/her  about the results of the review process. The author is required to reply to the reviewer’s  comments within the specified time, and either accept them or present relevant counterarguments. At this point, the author has the right to withdraw the submission.

If the author agrees with the reviewer’s comments, he/she is obliged to revise the article,  include all  constructive comments from the reviewers, and resubmit it within 14 days.


Review form