Peer Review Policy and Procedure
The editorial board collectively assesses all received papers regarding their compliance with the editorial policy and the text formatting requirements. The materials published in the Research and Materials sections are subject to a double-blind peer-review. Papers coming into other sections (essays, reviews, interviews, etc.) are usually not reviewed, but the editorial board also assesses their quality.
Materials that have passed a preliminary assessment are sent for further review to members of the editorial board and editorial council and external experts. The author’s name is not disclosed to the reviewer, and the name of the reviewer is not disclosed to the author. Reviewers evaluate:
− the novelty of the research
− data transparency and sufficiency
− theoretical and methodological framework
− depth and quality of argumentation
− consistency and quality of academic writing.
Materials are evaluated by the editorial board then anonymized: all attributions of authorship are deleted. The anonymized paper is transferred to the chief editors who choose the suitable reviewer.
Every manuscript is reviewed by a member of the editorial board and an expert from a different institution. The process is carried out following the principles of editorial ethics of the journal.
Regardless of the general nature of the review, it is expected to be written in a friendly manner and, if possible, contain advice to the author on how to improve the research. After receiving reviews, the editorial board decides on the possibility of publishing the manuscript in the journal. The board also might decide to obtain additional expert opinions.
The chief editors consult with the editorial board regarding all decisions to accept, reject, or send the article to the author for revision. The review process takes two months from the date of submission.
After receiving a review, the author has one month to finalize the paper.