The Procedures of Editorial Reviewing

To submit an article for a review the authors are expected to send two separate files – on with the text of the article, the other with information about the author.

The journal uses double-blind review, which means that, by default, author names are not revealed to reviewers, and the reviewer names are withheld from the authors. The publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

1.Each submission is checked for suitability when received by the editorial office, and may be rejected without review if it is outside the scope of the journal, is obviously of insufficient quality, or is missing important sections. Then the article is sent to a reviewer by one of the members of the editorial office – a PhD or an expert in the field closest to the topic of the article.

2. The time to review and make a decision is approximately 1 month.

3. The review by a member of the editorial board or an external reviewer covers the following questions:

a) whether the content of the article is consistent with the title stated in the title;

b) the scientific novelty of the study;

c) the availability of the article’s material to readers in terms of language, style, the structure of the article, clarity of tables, diagrams, figures and formulas;

d) whether the selected methods and methodology of the study are adequate, whether the ideas are innovative and whether the publication of the article is appropriate;

e) theoretical foundations of the concepts;

f) the credibility of the hypothesis and the validity of the arguments;

j) consistency of the findings with the aims and objectives of the study.

 4. All reviews will be kept by the editorial board for 5 years.

5. On receipt of the review, the Editor-in-Chief will make a decision of (1) accept, (2) minor revision, (3) major revision, or (4) reject. The reasons for the decision will be communicated to the authors. If the author agrees with the revision and introduces the changes required by the editor, the article is to be revised and resent. When revised articles are received, they will either be sent out for further review or the Editor-in-Chief will make a decision depending on the level of revision requested.

6. When the decision of minor/major revision is made, and the authors do not revise their articles satisfactorily after receiving reviewer reports, then the Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject the article. When revised articles are received, they will either be sent out for further review or the Editor-in-Chief will make a decision depending on the level of revision requested