Instruction to reviewers


Reviewers should professionally, reasonably, impartially, objectively and within the set deadlines (up to 15 days) submit to the Editor an evaluation of the scientific value of the manuscript. Comments related to the author's personality are considered inappropriate. The review must be clear and substantiated by arguments.

The reviewer must not be in conflict of interest with the authors or the funder of the research. If there is a conflict of interest, the reviewer is obliged to immediately notify the editor thereof.

A reviewer who considers himself / herself incompetent for the topic or specialty of the manuscript is required to notify the editor thereof.

Reviewers evaluate the papers in relation to the correspondence of the topic of the paper with the profile of the journal, the relevance of the research area and methods applied, the originality and scientific relevance of the information presented in the manuscript, as well as to the style of scientific presentation.

A reviewer who has reasonable doubt or knowledge of a breach of ethical standards by the author is obliged to notify the editor thereof.

The reviewer is expected to recognize important published works that have not been cited by the authors and to suggest authors to cite them in their work.

They should also draw the Editor’s attention to any significant similarities and coincidences between the manuscript under review and any other published work or manuscript under review in another journal, if they have personal knowledge of it.

Papers / manuscripts submitted to the reviewer are confidential documents. Reviewers may not use unpublished material from submitted manuscripts for their research without the express written permission of the author, and the information and ideas presented in the submitted manuscripts must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.


All received manuscripts are subject to internal and external review. The aim of the external review is to help the Editor / Editorial Board decide whether the manuscript should be accepted or rejected and improve the quality of the manuscript through the process of communication with authors.

Review is anonymous, identity of the author is unknown to the reviewers, and vice versa.

Authors are required to submit contact information (including email addresses) and area of expertise for three potential reviewers. These proposed reviewers should be experts in research fields, relevant to the manuscript, and should not be members of the same research or academic institution as the authors. Reviewers suggested by the author will be considered along with other potential reviewers who have been selected based on their publications or recommended by editorial board members. However, the final decision on the selection of reviewers lies with the editor and / or editorial board. Also, the reviewers cite three potential reviewers who do not want to review the manuscript, which the editor will comply with.

Manuscripts are submitted to two independent reviews. Reviewers will be asked to complete a "Reviewer Form" that facilitates manuscript review.

The editor’s final decision will be made based on the recommendation of the reviewers, provided that both recommendations are in agreement and without clear disagreement. Where contrary views exist, the paper is evaluated by a third reviewer who may or may not be a member of the editorial board of the journal. Once all reviews have been received and reviewed by the editor and / or editorial board, a final decision is made and a letter is sent to the corresponding author.