Peer Review Process

1. Submission of the Manuscript

The author submits the manuscript through the journal’s online submission interface, in accordance with the formal, linguistic, and referencing requirements set out in the Instructions for Authors.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal, is suitable for the selected section, and meets the basic scholarly, ethical, and formal requirements set out in the Instructions for Authors.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal’s scope, fail to meet basic scholarly or formal requirements, or raise serious ethical or originality concerns may be rejected without external peer review.

3. Invitation of Reviewers

If the manuscript is considered suitable for further evaluation, the Editor-in-Chief — with the assistance of the Managing Editor — invites at least two experts in the relevant field who are independent of the author to review the submission.

Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief and the Managing Editor, with the involvement of other members of the Editorial Board where necessary. Reviewer selection takes into account subject expertise, independence, the absence of conflicts of interest, and the reviewer’s scholarly suitability for the topic of the manuscript.

The journal applies a double-anonymous peer-review process: the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process.

The President of the Editorial Board does not participate in the regular peer-review process of manuscripts; this role is primarily connected with the independent handling of complaints and appeals.

4. Response to the Invitation

Invited reviewers consider the request on the basis of their expertise, availability, and any actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest. They then decide whether to accept or decline the review assignment. Where possible, reviewers who decline the invitation may suggest alternative qualified experts.

5. Conduct of the Peer Review

Reviewers assess the manuscript using the journal’s peer-review criteria. They consider, in particular, the manuscript’s originality, scholarly significance, methodological or interpretative soundness, clarity of argument, use of relevant literature, accuracy of source handling, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

The reviewer’s recommendation normally falls into one of the following categories:

6. Evaluation of the Reviews and Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the reviewers’ reports in consultation with the Managing Editor and, where necessary, with members of the Editorial Board, and then decides on the further course of the manuscript.

The editorial decision may be:

• to accept the manuscript;
• to request minor revisions;
• to request major revisions;
• to reject the manuscript.

Where appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief may invite an additional external expert, particularly if the reviewers’ reports differ substantially or if the evaluation of the manuscript requires further subject-specific expertise.

7. Communication of the Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or the Managing Editor communicates the editorial decision to the author. Where applicable, the author receives the reviewers’ reports and any editorial comments intended to assist with revision or further development of the manuscript.

8. Revision and Further Evaluation

If the manuscript is accepted without revision, it proceeds to the technical editing and production-preparation stage of the publication process.

If minor or major revisions are required, the author is invited to revise the manuscript in light of the reviewers’ and editors’ comments.

• In the case of major revisions, the revised manuscript is normally returned to the original reviewers or to other appropriate experts for further evaluation.
• In the case of minor revisions, the revised manuscript may be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief and the Managing Editor without being returned to the reviewers.

9. Final Decision and Preparation for Publication

After evaluation of the revised manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision. If the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to language, technical, and layout preparation.

For manuscripts accepted for publication, the editorial office reserves the right to request formal, linguistic, referencing, or technical corrections before publication, or to make such corrections in consultation with the author.

10. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

All participants in the peer-review process must preserve the confidentiality of manuscripts, reviewers’ reports, and editorial communication. Reviewers and editors must not use unpublished information contained in manuscripts for their own purposes or for the benefit of third parties.

Reviewers, editors, and any other persons involved in the editorial process must disclose any actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflict of interest. Where a conflict of interest exists, the person concerned must not participate in the evaluation or handling of the manuscript.

11. Complaints and Appeals

Last updated: 11 May 2026