Peer-review process – content and principles

  1. Sent author's manuscript is always published after the independent review process only.
  2. The course of the review process is double-blind.
  3. At least two expert reviewers’ opinions are drawn for each sent manuscript.
  4. The reviewer is an expert in the field of science with full university degree at least, evidenced by publications in the field of science and her / his professional erudition. The manuscript will be critically and adequately assed by the reviewer with the aim of the highest possible level of the quality of the content of the manuscript.
  5. None of reviewers of the manuscript is an employee of the same institution from which one or more of the authors (co-authors) sending the manuscript come.
  6. The requirement of an absence of the conflict of interest regarding the copyright of the manuscript under consideration is respected.
  7. The editor office archives reviewing reports (in a secure and protected format) for a period of 5 years at least.
  8. The guarantee of expertise, originality and quality of research / survey / reviewing work lies on the editorial board of the journal.
  9. The editorial board also forms both the professional and scientific profile / design of the journal with an emphasis on up-to-date scientific research findings and the priority themes of empirical research in the scientific field.
  10. For the inclusion of sent manuscript into the review process, the fact of the saturation of formal requirements is important. They are specified in Instructions for Authors document (available on WWW: including the PDF version of the document on the same link.
  11. Information about the review results are sent to main author by e-mail (or to correspondence author) (possibly based on a written request with the permission of the copyright also to another member of the authors´ team, which is responsible for communication with the editors of the journal).
  12. The reviewer may require the additional consideration or the revision of the manuscript. The author is requested to (re)edit / makes revision of the content of the manuscript. Realized (re)edit / revision / editing process does automatically not guarantee the acceptance of the manuscript for its publication.
  13. The editors of the journal can make – in the context of review and preliminary processes – formal or minor stylistic changes / additions.
  14. The reviewers judge and compare the manuscript with the criteria described in Instructions for Authors document.
  15. Only not published manuscript / or offered for publication in another journal or source of scientific information in published form (e.g. conference proceedings, annual reports, research reports, short scientific communication etc.) can be submitted into to the review process.
  16. The editorial board can accept changes in the submitted manuscript (e.g. name changes, affiliation, contact addresses etc.), but on both the timed notice of this fact and the absence of any conflicts in authors team / authors affiliation / reviewers only.
  17. During the review process, the requirement of the humane approach is fully respected. The manuscript (its content, scientific potential, intention, results and conviction of opinion, etc.) is evaluated without regard to race, religion, origin, sex, sexual orientation, citizenship of authors / authors´ team / reviewers / editorial board.
  18. The publishing of the manuscript – which came from a successful anonymous review process – is not honored.
  • Review process – content and principles - download here (PDF format)