Manuscripts which pass editorial assessment undergo at least two double-blind reviews, where the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous.
Potential reviewers are initially sent a review request and the abstract of the manuscript. By accepting the assignment, the reviewer confirms that no conflict of interest exists.
The review process is conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics, available at the following link: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Version 2, September 2017 https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9.
Following the receipt of reviews, papers may be categorised as:
- Original scientific article – characterised by the originality of its conclusions or its presentation of unpublished original results of scientifically conceptualised and conducted research.
- Preliminary communication – contains the initial results of ongoing research, which require rapid publication due to their topicality, but lack a high level of comprehensiveness and grounding.
- Review article – contains a thorough and comprehensive critical overview of a specific issue, but without particular originality of results.
- Professional article – contains knowledge and experience relevant to a specific profession but lacks scientific characteristics.
The paper is categorised based on the evaluation of two reviewers. If the reviews differ regarding categorisation, a third review may be requested. The final decision on the categorisation of the paper is made by the Editor-in-Chief and the members of the Editorial Board.
Along with the paper, the reviewer receives a review form, which they are required to complete and return to the Editorial Board no later than one month from receipt of the paper. In exceptional circumstances, the reviewer may request a longer deadline for submitting the review, and if they are unable to complete the review within the recommended timeframe, they are obliged to notify the Journal’s Editorial Board in a timely manner.
The reviewer should determine:
- Is the content of the paper appropriate for the scope of a scientific journal?
- Is the topic of the paper scientifically relevant?
- Does the title of the paper correspond to its content?
- Have relevant sources/literature been used in the paper?
- Does the paper require any additions or condensations?
- Have scientific methods and professional terminology been used in the paper?
- Are the conclusions in the paper scientifically grounded?
- Is the abstract of the paper appropriate to its content?
- Are the citations and references in the paper accurate?
- Does the paper provide new scientific insights?
The reviewer may not use the findings of the paper assigned to them for review prior to its publication, nor disclose any information regarding the manuscript received during the peer review process. Furthermore, the reviewer must not disclose any information about a paper that has not received a positive evaluation.
The reviewer must be objective, and their evaluation of the paper should be scientifically grounded and clearly reasoned.
If they have requested modifications to the paper, the reviewer may ask for the paper to be resent to them for review after the text has been revised.
If the reviewer does not make comments directly within the paper, but exclusively in the review form, it is preferable for them to number their comments and suggestions (clearly indicating the relevant parts of the paper), so that the authors can respond to them more easily.
The reviewer’s comments should be scientifically reasoned and made in good faith towards both the author and the Journal.
The reviewer should ensure they leave no traces of their identity within the paper provided to the author (whether in a comment or the file name).
The completed review form must be submitted in electronic format – either with an electronic signature in PDF format or signed and scanned.