Reviewers’ responsibilities

Reviewers  are  required  to  provide  written,  competent  and  unbiased  feedback  in  a  timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the manuscript. The reviewers assess manuscript for the compliance  with  the  profile  of  the  journal,  the  relevance  of  the  investigated topic  and  applied  methods,  the  originality  and  scientific  relevance  of  information  presented  in the manuscript, the presentation style and scholarly apparatus.

Reviewers  should  alert  the  Editor  to  any  well-founded  suspicions  or  the  knowledge  of  possible violations  of  ethical  standards  by  the  authors.  Reviewers should  recognize  relevant  published works  that  have  not  been  cited  by  the  authors  and  alert  the  Editor  to  substantial  similarities between  a  reviewed  manuscript  and  any  manuscript  published  or under  consideration  for publication  elsewhere,  in  the  event  they  are  aware  of  such.  Reviewers  should  also  alert  the Editor to a parallel submission of the same paper to another journal, in the event they are aware of such.

Reviewers must not have conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the funding  sources  for  the  research.  If  such  conflicts  exist,  the  reviewers  must  report  them  to  the Editor without delay. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in  a  manuscript  or  knows  that  its  prompt  review  will  be  impossible  should  notify  the  Editor without delay.

Reviews  must  be  conducted  objectively.  Personal  criticism  of  the  author  is  inappropriate. Reviewers  should  express  their  views  clearly  with  supporting  arguments.  Any  manuscripts received for review   must   be   treated   as   confidential   documents.   reviewers   must   not   use unpublished  materials  disclosed  in  submitted  manuscripts  without  the  express  written  consent of  the  authors.  The  information  and  ideas  presented  in  submitted  manuscripts  shall  be  kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.

Peer review

The  submitted  manuscripts  are  subject  to  a  peer  review  process.  The  purpose  of  peer  review  is to  assists  the  Editor  in  making  editorial  decisions  and  through  the  editorial  communications with the author it may also assist the author in improving the paper.

A  manuscript  goes  through  the  peer  review  process  -  Double-blind  peer-review.  Double-blind peer review mean that reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers. There have to be at least two reviewers. The typical period of time allowed for reviews: 6 weeks. Note: Can be modified during the editorial process.

The  choice  of  reviewers  is  at  the  editors'  discretion.  The  reviewers  must  be  knowledgeable about the subject area of the manuscript; they must not be from the authors' own institution and they should not have recent joint publications with any of the authors. Reviewers must not have conflict  of  interest  with  respect  to  the  research,  the  authors  and/or  the  funding sources  for  the research. If such conflicts exist, the reviewers must report them to the Editor without delay.

Any  selected  referee  who  feels  unqualified  to  review  the  research  reported  in  a  manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor without delay. Reviews must  be  conducted  objectively.  Personal  criticism  of  the  author  is  inappropriate.  Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Every  article  will  be  review  under  two  independently  reviewers.  Any  manuscripts  received  for review must be treated as confidential documents.

All  of  the reviewers  of  a  paper  act  independently  and  they  are  not  aware  of  each  other’s identities. If the decisions of the two reviewers are not the same (accept/reject), the Editor may assign additional reviewers.

During   the   review   process   Editor   may   require   authors   to   provide   additional   information (including  raw  data)  if  they  are  necessary  for  the  evaluation  of  the  scholarly  merit  of  the manuscript.  These  materials  shall  be  kept  confidential  and  must  not  be  used  for  personal  gain. The  Editorial  team  shall  ensure  reasonable  quality  control  for  the  reviews.  With  respect  to reviewers  whose  reviews  are  convincingly  questioned  by  authors,  special  attention  will  be  paid to ensure that the reviews are objective and high in academic standard. When there is any doubt with regard to the objectivity of the reviews or quality of the review, additional reviewers will be assigned

All scientific articles are subject to mandatory review. Two reviewers from relevant scientific field are provided for each article, and both are anonymous. The authors' names are also anonymous to the reviewers.

If the reviewers give a positive review to the article, they put it into one of the following categories:

Original scientific paper represents an original scientific work in which the new results of a fundamental or applied research are presented. This paper is written in such a way, so that on the basis of the presented information we may:

  • reproduce a methodological and computational procedure, on the basis of the obtained results with the same accuracy or within the bounded degrees of freedom, as the author himself states, or
  • repeat the author's observations and judge his analysis, or
  • check the accuracy of analyses and deductions on which the author's findings are based.

Preliminary communication represents a scientific paper which must include one or more scientific information, but without sufficient detail to enable a reader to check the presented scientific knowledge.

Conference paper represents a comprehensive paper that was previously presented at a scientific meeting, but as a complete paper was not published in the Proceedings of the scientific meeting.

Review paper presents a particular problem of which the scientific paper has already been published, but with a new approach.

Professional paper contains useful addenda from the profession and for the profession.


Call for Papers


PAPER TEMPLATE (Word Document)