Reviewing procedure
REVIEWERS RESPONSIBILITIES
Reviewers shall timely deliver to the editor a competent, well-argumented and unbiased evaluation of the scientific value of the manuscript. The reviewers assess the manuscript for the compliance with the profile of the journal, the relevance of the investigated topic and applied methods, the originality and scientific relevance of information presented in the manuscript, the scientific presentation style and scholarly apparatus. Reviewers should notify the editor of any reasonable doubts or knowledge of violations of ethical standards by the authors. The reviewers should recognize relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. They should also alert the editor to substantial similarities between a reviewed manuscript and any manuscript published or reviewed for publication by any other journal, in the event they have personal knowledge thereof. Reviewers should also alert the editor if the same manuscript is submitted to several journals at the same time, in the event they have personal knowledge thereof.
The Reviewers must not have a conflict of interest with the authors or the research funder. If such conflicts exist, the reviewers must report them to the Editor without delay.
Any reviewer who feels incompetent for the topic or field of the manuscript should notify the editor thereof without delay.
Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is deemed inappropriate. The reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Manuscripts received for review must be deemed as confidential documents. The reviewers must not use unpublished material from submitted manuscripts without the explicit written consent of their authors, and the information and ideas presented in the submitted manuscripts must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.
STATEMENT OF REVIEW POLICY
Manuscripts will not be forwarded for review until they have undergone an initial assessment focussing on formatting and compliance with the journal’s thematic framework. This preliminary review is carried out promptly in order to avoid unnecessary delays. The peer review process takes up to 2 weeks, but in exceptional cases it may take longer.
The submitted manuscripts are subject to a review process. The purpose of the review is to assist the editor in deciding whether a manuscript should be accepted or not, and to improve the quality of the manuscripts through the communication with their authors.
Reviews are anonymous.
The reviewer must finish his review within 14 days as from the date the manuscript has been received. If prevented to finish his job within the given period of time, the reviewer must notify the editor-in-chief without delay.
Reviews are free of charge.
The choice of reviewers is at the editor's discretion. The reviewers must have relevant knowledge about the subject area of the manuscript and they must not be from the author's institution and they should not have recent joint publications with any of the authors (as co-authors) of the manuscript. During the review process, the editor may request from the author to provide supplementary information (including raw data), if such information is necessary for making a judgment on the scientific contribution (merit) of the manuscript. The editor and reviewer will keep such information as confidential and will not use it for personal gain.
The editorial board shall ensure the quality control for the review. In case authors have serious and grounded objections to a review, the editorial board shall l check whether the review is objective and whether it meets academic standards. In case of any doubt with regard to the objectivity or quality of the review, the editor will seek the opinions of other reviewers.
This journal uses double-blind review.