- Peer review is bilaterally anonymous and reviewers shall refrain from taking steps to reveal authors’ identities.
- Peer reviewers are nominated by the editor-in-chief in collaboration with the advisory board to avoid conflict of interest.
- In the event of a potential conflict of interest (e.g., in the event of conscientious objection – ideological, ethical or other prejudice, or in case of a potential disruption of impartiality), the reviewers shall immediately notify the editor-in-chief. The editor-in-chief/editor, upon assessing the situation, may appoint a new evaluator.
- Reviewers must have worked in the field for at least 3 years and achieve at least a third degree of university education. Exceptions are only made in cases where the specificity of the contribution topic requires it.
- Reviewers are appointed with special focus on professional and methodological competencies in accordance with the topic and the methodology of the contribution.
- Reviewers shall treat the manuscripts under review as confidential and are obliged to avoid using ideas, research data, arguments, and other intellectual content in manuscripts for their own purposes.
- Reviewers write their opinions in the most detailed way possible, objectively taking into account all the positive and negative aspects of the manuscript under review and they comment on them in a factual professional style.
- In their opinions, reviewers shall draw attention to the relevant literature, providing it has not been indicated in the text.
- Even though the process of evaluating contributions is anonymous, the reviewers’ personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.
- If a peer-reviewed article is approved with substantial reservations or a revision of the manuscript is recommended by reviewers, the author is required to take into account the reviewers’ comments and to re-submit the revised article for independent review. The reviewer making the reservations shall assess whether the incorporation of the proposed corrections and changes was sufficient.
- The final release decision is subject to the approval of the editor in chief. In the event of contradictory opinions of reviewers, the editor-in-chief shall approach an independent expert in the field of research to review the manuscript and the comments, or he/she shall observe the advisory board’s decision. The author shall be notified of the consideration for publication.
- The texts in sections Štúdie [Studies] and Rozhľady [Outlooks] are reviewed. For other articles in sections Kritika [Reviews], Poznámky [Notes], Nekrológ [Obituary] and so on, the publication decision shall be approved by the editorial team. The editors shall announce the release decision to the author.