Review Policies
The reviewing process
Each manuscript is reviewed by two (2) independent reviewers. Reviews are based on the so-called double-blind review policy. Editors ask the Authors to identify at least two (2) reviewers, which does not mean, however, their automatic choice. The manuscript is qualified for printing after obtaining two (2) positive reviews. In case of one (1) negative review, the Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the manuscript.
- At least two (2) independent experts not affiliated with the department are chosen to review each submitted article.
- Authors may suggest potential reviewers, the decision to consider these reviewers is at the editor’s discretion. Authors who wish to suggest peer reviewers can do so in the cover letter and should provide institutional email addresses where possible or information that will help the Editor to verify and identify the potential introduced reviewers (for example an ORCID or Scopus Author Identifier (which is a unique number).
- Authors may request the exclusion of individuals as peer reviewers, but they should explain the reasons in their cover letter on submission. Authors should not exclude too many individuals as this may hinder the peer review process. Please note that the editor may choose to invite excluded peer reviewers.
- Intentionally falsifying information, for example, suggesting reviewers with a false name or email address, will result in the rejection of the manuscript and may lead to further investigation in line with our misconduct policy.
- In case of publications written in a foreign language, at least one (1) of the experts has to be affiliated with a foreign institution from a different country than the author of the article.
- The recommended model of reviewing is a double-blind process, in which author(s) and reviewers do not know the identity of one another.
- If a double-blind process is inapplicable, the reviewer is obliged to sign a declaration confirming the lack of conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is understood as:
- Direct personal relations (kinship, legal relations, conflict),
- Professional subordination,
- Direct scientific cooperation two (2) years before the preparation of the review.
- The review must be delivered in a written form and end with an unambiguous conclusion on whether the article should be published or rejected.
- The rules of acceptance or rejection as well as the review form are displayed for all viewers on the website of the Publishing House or the journal or in each issue of the journal.
- The names of the reviewers of the particular publications/issues are not revealed. Once a year the journal makes the list of collaborating reviewers public.
Manuscripts must comply with the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors http://www.icmje.org/, i.e., Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/.