Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are reviewed in accordance with the regulated procedure of single blind peer review.

Single Blind Peer Review

The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is, by far, the most common type.


Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions free from influence by the author.


Authors fear the risk that reviewers working in the same field may withhold submission of the review in order to delay publication, thereby giving the reviewer the opportunity to publish first.

Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the author’s work.

The policy of the submitted manuscripts review

  1. A manuscript submitted through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) is examined whether it is prepared according to the guidelines and fits the scope of the journal. If these minimum requirements are met the article is registered and rejected otherwise.
  2. The author is notified about the article registration or its rejection within three days after the manuscript submission.
  3. All submitted manuscripts are subjected to a single-blind peer review process participated at least by 3 independent referees who remain anonymous throughout the process.
  4. Referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Referees are the members of the Editorial Board or external experts who have a degree and specialize on the subject of the reviewed manuscript. The reviewer cannot be the author (authors) of the manuscript and scientist who has a conflict of interest (e.g. a supervisor and his subordinate, a scientific adviser and his student). Suggestions for referees from the author are welcome though these recommendations may or may not be used. The editors of the journal notify reviewers in advance that by accepting a manuscript for review they also accept an obligation to maintain confidentiality of the manuscript's contents.
  5. Referee reviews on the manuscript are submitted through the OJS. The referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript: is original and of sufficient weight and interest; is sound and valid; is clearly presented, including linguistic quality; thoroughly investigates and correctly references previous relevant work and whether sizes of all elements (i.e. text, tables, pictures, references) are adjusted to the manuscript length. At the end of the review the referee gives a reasoned conclusion with the recommendation to accept or reject the manuscript or suggestion for improvement.
  6. In case the referee suggests to improve the manuscript he must provide a list of elements of the manuscript recommended to be edited and his remarks on them.
  7. A decision to accept or reject the manuscript, or to request a revision, is sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees. The receipt date of a revised manuscript is the date of its submission through the OJS. The revised manuscript is treated as a newly-received. The editors of the journal reserve the right to reject the revised manuscript in case of the author's neglect of the referees remarks.
  8. The referees advise the Editor-in-Chief, who is responsible for the decision to accept or reject the submission.
  9. In case of rejection of the manuscript the author gets a review with a motivated refusal.
  10. The author has the right to withdraw the article at any stage prior to its publication in the journal.
  11. Manuscripts are reviewed within two months after the receipt date.
  12. The journal does not store rejected manuscripts and reviews on them.
  13. The journal does not accept conference papers, grant reports and technical reports. Submission of review articles is recommended to be arranged in advance with the Editorial Board.