This journal uses a double-blind, expert review of articles, which means that identities of reviewers and authors remain hidden throughout the whole review process. This process ensures publication of a high-quality texts and eliminates the influence of reviewers and authors. The authors are required to ensure their identity is not clear from the author’s manuscript (for more details see instructions for authors).
First evaluation of the manuscript
New manuscripts are reviewed by an authorized editor for compliance with the formal requirements listed on the magazine webpage (see information for authors). The editor considers if the subject and range of the manuscript correspond to the focus of the magazine.
Manuscripts that meet these criteria are submitted for review by two independent reviewers. The choice of reviewers is determined by the editor.
The reviewer is selected by his or her professional focus and also by a sufficient personal discretion in relation to the author (the author and reviewer are not colleagues from the same workplace, there is no family relationship between them, etc.). The author of the article can suggest reviewers himself, and his recommendations may or may not be accepted.
Before the start of the review procedure, all articles undergo antiplagiarism control. For antiplag. check of Czech articles we use Odevzdej.cz system. For check of texts in English we use the Viper Plagiarism checker.
Expert assessment
By accepting a request for a review, the reviewer agrees to respect the Ethical Codex for Reviewers.
In the online review form the reviewers evaluate the handwriting in terms of the adequacy and quality of the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, objectives, hypotheses, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion, literature, picture attachments, tables, language level and relevance of the text.
Reviewer of the magazine article will:
- recommend acceptance of the manuscript
- recommend minor revision
- recommend major revision
- not recommend the manuscript for publication
If minor or major revision is recommended, the article always undergoes the second round of the review process. This second round does not take place in the case where the reviewer recommended only "minor revision" and explicitly wrote that he/she does not want to see the article again after the author makes the minor adjustments.
Reviewers are also asked to write anonymous comments to the author. These comments are also available for other manuscript reviewers. Reviewers are not expected to do the correction of the handwriting. No language proofreading is part of the expert assessment process.
Review process duration and the fundamental discrepancy in the final reviews
Reviewers provide their editorial expertise within 30 days of receiving an article for review.
If these reviews contradict each other or are not delivered to the editors within 30 days, additional experts can be contacted.
Decision about article publication
The editor, in collaboration with the editor-in-chief, decides on the acceptance / rejection of the article for publication on the basis of the received reviews. This decision with the recommendations from reviewers is sent to the author. The author shall send the final version of the article to the editors within two weeks of receiving the reviews, in a change tracking format so that it is clear what changes have been made to the text. In a special document MS Word, the author writes his statement on those comments of the reviewer, with which he does not agree. If the author refuses to take the review comments into account, the article will be rejected by the editorial staff.