Peer-Review process

Reviewing Rules

The journal follows a double-blind review process, ensuring full anonymity between Authors and Reviewers.

All submissions are initially screened by members of the Editorial Board. External Reviewers who are not affiliated with the Authors’ institution are then invited to evaluate the manuscripts. Each manuscript is assessed by at least two independent Reviewers.

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest, if, despite anonymisation, they have potentially recognised the identity of the Authors.

Reviewers’ identities are not disclosed. A list of Reviewers who collaborated during the year is published in the second issue and on the journal’s website.

Reviews are submitted via official forms that include a final recommendation: accept, minor revision, major revision or reject, with justification and comments.

Authors receive anonymised feedback through the Editor and may respond to Reviewers’ comments. In cases of dispute, a third Reviewer may be appointed.

Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions if they can provide strong evidence or new data addressing the Reviewers’ or Editors’ comments. Appeals should be directed to the Editorial Board.

Please note that editorial rejections based on scope, novelty, or priority generally cannot be overturned through appeal. Authors whose manuscripts are rejected are encouraged to consider submission to another journal.

Article Withdrawal

The Editors may retract an article due to major ethical violations (e.g. falsification of findings, non-authorised data use etc.) which were reported after the publication.

A Retraction Notice titled “Withdrawal: [title of paper]”, signed by the Editor (and authors when applicable), will appear in the next issue and for a withdrawn article on the journal’s website.

Editorial Rights

The Editors reserve the right to make stylistic, grammatical, and logical corrections, as well as to abridge the text, without altering its scientific content.