1. General rules and instructions for reviewers

The process of submitting a paper, reviewing and publishing a paper is free of charge. The instructions for authors are available in each issue and on the journal's website. Papers that are not written in accordance with the instructions for authors are not considered.

The main and responsible editor retains the discretionary right to evaluate and not publish papers that do not meet the prescribed content and formal criteria.

Received papers are subject to review. The selection of reviewers falls within the discretion of the editor (and the guest editor if the journal has one). The journal, in order to raise its quality, is included in the proposal and determination of reviewers. The goal of the review is to help the editor make a decision on whether to accept or reject the paper.

A reviewer who considers himself incompetent for the topic or area that the paper deals with must inform the editor.

Reviewers sign a form expressing their consent to be included as reviewers in the journal. The operational editor maintains a list of reviewers and an archive of consent.

The editor is obliged to publish a list of reviewers who have reviewed papers submitted for that issue, regardless of whether the papers have been accepted for publication or not.

The review is double anonymous: the identity of the reviewers is not known to the authors and the identity of the authors is not known to the reviewers. The operational editor removes personal data of the authors (primarily, name and affiliation) from the paper before sending it for review and takes all reasonable measures to ensure that the identity of the authors remains unknown to the reviewers until the review process is completed. The operational editor also removes the identity of the reviewer when sending the review and comments to the author.

Each scientific and professional paper is reviewed by two reviewers. A third reviewer is included if necessary, usually in cases of significant disagreement in the reviews. If the editor determines that this is not necessary, the main and responsible editor can make a decision without requesting additional reviewers. Reviewers are not revealed to the authors and vice versa, except when both parties express willingness to communicate directly. The identity of the reviewer is not revealed to the other reviewer.

During the review process, the reviewer may request that the editor provide additional information from the authors (including primary databases) if they are necessary to make a decision on the scientific contribution of the paper. The editor and reviewers must keep such information as confidential and must not use it for personal gain.

2. Instructions for the review process

The review is conducted on a form approved by the journal's editorial board. The form is part of the instructions. The reviewer may also submit a paper with comments (clearly indicate what is the reviewer's comment and to which part of the paper it refers). A paper with comments is considered part of the review.

Reviewers are required to evaluate the scientific value of the paper objectively, argumentatively, impartially and in the specified timeframes. Reviewers evaluate papers in relation to the consistency of the paper's topic with the journal's profile, the relevance of the research area and the methodological approach, the originality and scientific relevance of the data presented in the paper, as well as the style of scientific presentation.

The quality indicators of the papers are evaluated with the letters “A” if a certain element of the paper fully meets the criteria, “B” if it generally meets the criteria (or a possible correction that does not require extensive changes) and “V” if the evaluated element/aspect does not meet the criteria of a scientific paper. These letters are entered in the form for the appropriate field. In each field, comments, suggestions for changes and suggestions for improving the quality of a certain element/aspect of the paper can be entered, but this is not mandatory.

If the reviewer requests extensive changes and a re-review, the revised paper is sent back to the same reviewer. The reviewer can evaluate certain elements with the ratings A or B and if the paper does not meet the described indicators in exceptional cases, but must explain the rating. The reviewer can, in addition to the set indicators, enter additional comments, suggestions and suggestions in the form for the appropriate field.

If the reviewer has reasonable doubts or knowledge of ethical violations by the authors, he must inform the editor. The reviewer should recognize important published papers that the authors did not cite. He should alert the editor and on significant similarities and coincidences between the paper under review and any other published paper or paper in the review process in another journal, if he has personal knowledge of this.

The reviewer must not have a conflict of interest with the authors or the funder of the research. If there is a conflict of interest and the reviewer has knowledge of it, the reviewer must immediately inform the editor.

The review must be objective. Comments about the personal qualities of the authors are considered inappropriate. The reviewer's judgment must be clear and supported by arguments.

Papers sent to the reviewer are considered confidential documents. Reviewers must not use unpublished material from the submitted papers for their own research without explicit written permission from the authors, and information and ideas expressed in the submitted papers must be kept as confidential and must not be used for personal gain.