Peer review rules

The journal operates a double-blind peer review system. This means that both the names of the Authors are not disclosed to the Reviewers, and the names of the Reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. Reviewers are selected in accordance with the principle of avoiding conflict of interest (examples of conflicts of interest include a personal relationship between Reviewer and Author, occupational subordination, direct scientific cooperation over the last two years prior to the review).

It is essential that Reviewers respond in a timely manner upon receipt of a request for review, especially if they are unable to draft a review. This avoids unnecessary delay in the process.

Reviewers should report any conflicts of interest (if in doubt, seek editorial advice) and be knowledgeable enough in the field to accurately evaluate the work.

Reviewers must keep confidential all information regarding the identity of the Authors and the content of the manuscript.

Reviewers' comments should be objective and constructive, and should not be hostile or derogatory.

More information on the issues of ethical peer reviews and conflicts of interest can be found in the COPE guidelines.

The review is provided in written form and concludes with an explicit recommendation to accept, revise or reject the paper for publication. If a negative review is given, the submission is rejected, which ends the assessment procedure. Re-submission of a rejected manuscript is not possible.

Criteria used by Editors and Reviewers in evaluating manuscripts:
1. Is the manuscript under review relevant to the subject matter of the Quarterly?
2. Does the title of the manuscript correspond with its content? Is the title properly worded?
3. Is the subject of the study up to date and has it been appropriately substantiated with reference to the present state of knowledge?
4. Does the manuscript present new or original research results or methods?
5. Are the presented results of vital importance to the development of knowledge, innovativeness, etc.?
6. Have the Authors stated clearly what they have achieved and why it has been necessary to undertake the analysed subject?
7. Is the terminology used accurate and compliant with the current standards? Are the SI units used consistently?
8. Is the selection of the cited literature sufficient and appropriate? Are the references listed alphabetically and are they written in an appropriate format? Does the list of references include an appropriate share of
entries from the ISI Master Journal List? Are all items from the reference list referred to in the text?
9. Is the illustrative material clear, of good quality and properly selected?
10. Is the article well-written and stylistically correct? Are the abstract and the key words correct?

Selection of NO in point 1 is tantamount to rejection of the manuscript and ends the assessment procedure.

The Editor-in-Chief makes the publication decision after receiving at least two external reviewer reports with recommendations. On receiving the required number of reviews, the Editors pass them immediately to Authors. The Editors require that Authors prepare answers to reviewers’ comments, which are then sent to the referees. The Editor-in-Chief will make a decision to accept, accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions, or reject the paper for publication. The reasons for the decision will be communicated to the Authors.
When the decision of minor/major revisions is made, and the Authors do not revise their articles satisfactorily after receiving reviewer reports, then the Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject the article. When revised articles are received, they will either be sent out for further review or the Editor-in-Chief will make a decision depending on the level of revision requested. The time required for reviewing a manuscript and making a publication decision is may vary a lot from one submission to the next since it is sometimes difficult to find suitable Reviewers, and there may be delays in receiving reviewer reports. The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Office try their best to minimize the time from submission to first decision. The journal aims to make the first decision within 7 days after the Editorial Office check and the second decision within 30 days after the review, but no guarantees can be made in this regard.