Ethical rules

Reviewers are obliged to evaluate the paper objectively and professionally. The reviewer must not have a conflict of interest with the authors or organization that finances the realization of paper. In case of reasonable suspicion of a violation of professional ethics, the reviewer is obliged to inform the editors. Also, if they find out that the paper has been published in several journals at the same time, they have to inform the editors about it.

Evaluation process

The reviewers should evaluate the papers depending on the paper topic and journal topic compatibility, the originality and scientific relevance of the information presented in the paper, and the relevance of the studied areas and applied methods. The papers sent to the reviewers are considered confidential. They have to keep all the information and ideas as confidential and it is strictly prohibited from using them for their own publications and their personal gain.

The review is anonymous. Each paper is evaluated by two reviewers selected by the Editorial Board. The reviewers must have relevant knowledge from the field covered the written paper and they must not belong to the same institution as the author of the paper. If the two reviews are inconsistent, a third review should be performed. According to its results, the paper is further corrected or accepted. If there are two negative reviews, the paper is rejected. The reviews are free and must be clear and objective.

The reviewers are obliged to inform the Editorial Board that the submitted paper can be:

– accepted for publication in the present form,

– accepted for publication with minor revision,

– accepted for publication with major revision or

– rejected.

Deadline for sending the review

The reviews must be completed within 21 days. If more time is needed, the Editor-in-chief should be informed when to expect a review.

Authors who receive a decision of Major Revision have 15 days to resubmit the revised manuscript. The revised manuscript will be re-assigned to the reviewers. The refereeing procedures are to be done again, and in less than two weeks the author will be emailed the final decision.

The following Evaluation form is being sent to each reviewer.

EVALUATION FORM

Referee No.

Name

Institution/ Addressee

Date of asking/agreeing to review

Date of receiving the review

Manuscript No.

Author(s)

Title

Corresponding author

Manuscript type

Scientific:

Professional

– original scientific paper

– review article

– short (preliminary) communication

SUMMARY

1. Is this paper readable?

Yes

Moderaty

Poorly

Not at all

2. Is this a new and original theoretical contribution?

Yes

Moderaty

Poorly

Not at all

3. Do authors present new experimental data not yet published in the literature?

Yes

No

4. Is this paper acceptable?

In the present form

With minor revision

With major revision

To be rejected

5. Does this paper require addition of any kind?

Yes

No

6. Which part of the paper must be more precisely defined?

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results and discussion

Conclusion

7. Are some figures and tables not well described in the context of the paper?

Yes

No

8. Should some references be added or removed?

Yes

No

REVIEWER’S OPINION (Alternatively, it can be sent as an attachment):