Blind Peer-review Process

In order to be approved for publication all submitted articles undergo a two-stage review process by experts in the respective areas.

The articles are submitted anonymously. The information about the author(s) is sent in a separate file. Upon submission the Editor-in-chief is the first to review each manuscript in order to see if it meets the basic requirements specified in the publication guidelines uploaded on the site of the journal ( The reviewing process stops at this point for the articles that do not meet these requirements. This stage of the review process generally takes 1-2 weeks. The Editor-in-chief notifies the authors about the results.

Secondly, the manuscripts which meet the basic requirements are then sent out for blind peer review by 2 experts in the field. The external review takes approximately one month. The authors are sent copies of the external reviewers’ comments, as well as a notification of their decision:

  • To be accepted without changes;
  • To be accepted with minor changes;
  • To be resubmitted with major changes;
  • Not to be published.

If plagiarism is detected, the submission will be turned down. In addition, following the Ethical Statement, submissions already published, in press, or currently considered for publication elsewhere will be turned down.

Accepted articles are still subject to editorial review and revision.

The Editor-in-Chief, in partnership with the editorial board, makes the final publication decision. Editorial decisions are not affected by the origins of the article, including their nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the author.

Some of the review criteria are the following:

Does the article meet the requirements for publishing in the journal from thematic point of view?

Does the content match the title?

Are the key words suitable?            

Is the study original? Does the article present something new from the point of view of:

 – the chosen topic

 – the way the research is presented

 – the scientific concept

 – the methodology

 – other scientific values

Does the article add some new aspects to the knowledge on the subject?

Are the methodology and theoretical framework suitable?

Are there enough references used?

Does the article need any formal or language corrections?

Is the article rich in content? Is it consistent and logically ordered?

Particular advantages and disadvantages of the text.

Review Form