For reviewers

The review should contain comments, criticisms and:

  • a brief summary of the main results of the work with an assessment of the significance of these results in the field,
  • an assessment of the originality, correctness and significance of the results,
  • an assessment of the clarity of the work and its readability,
  • evaluation of the "technical" details of the work (its length, readability of tables and charts, selection of bibliography),
  • recommendation.

The reviewer can recommend the work as:

  • accepted,
  • conditionally accepted (the reviewer indicates the need for corrections and points out problematic paragraphs of the article),
  • rejected.

The review should be sent by e-mail to the editor who deals with the article in no more than 3 weeks from the start of the review process. The reviewer may also prepare a second document, intended solely for the editor, which will not be shared with the author.

All materials related to the review process (manuscript, review, correspondence) are confidential. The reviewer may not contact the author of the paper until the review process is completed. If there is a conflict of interest, the reviewer should inform the editors and refuse to participate in the review process. In such a case, the editors would appreciate suggesting another reviewer.

Editorial Board