Peer review process

The Editor-in-Chief checks the paper against the journal’s aims and scope, and compliance with the formal journal requirements, including plagiarism check.
The editor discusses the list of possible reviewers with the Editorial Board members and then selects 2-3 experts and sends the manuscript for review.
The reviewer is notified about the inquiry to review the manuscript and may refuse from this duty. In the case of consent to peer-review, the reviewers read the paper and provide comments, suggestions, and recommendations (reject, revise, or accept). The editor checks the reviews and sends them to the author(s), with any extra guidance if necessary. The authors are kindly asked to prepare the revised text in 2 weeks. In case the author fails to re-submit the revised manuscript within 2 weeks since receiving an initial review without any warning, the Editor-in-Chief withdraws the manuscript and notifies the author accordingly.
The articles are published after positive evaluation by two double-blind peer reviews. In case of conflicting reviews or a dispute in the Editorial Board a third reviewer (super peer reviewer) is invited. The peer reviews are kept at the editorial office of the Journal for three calendar years.
The reviewers act independently and they are not aware of each other’s identities. The reviewers are selected solely according to whether they have the relevant expertise for evaluating a manuscript. They must not be from the same working team as the author(s) of the manuscript, nor be their co-authors in the recent past.
The members of the Editorial Board, the Editor-in-Chief, or the experts proposed by the authors may also serve as reviewers.
After approval of the manuscript for publishing, it is forwarded for laying out. The finished layout is sent to the author for proofreading. The term for the proofreading is 2 days. The absence of response within this period is considered by the Editorial office as the absence of authors corrections in the paper.