Peer Reviewing

After the manuscript is submitted, the Editorial Office should confirm its receiving by email. All the manuscripts are reviewed by the editors who in course of two weeks would inform the authors about further procedure which can include modifications of the texts according to the editors’ comments. The Editorial Office does not accept the manuscripts which do not correspond to the journal’s scholarly orientation, do not answer the basic criteria of scholarly text, or are ethically challenging. The decision should be approved by the Editorial Board.

The texts of major articles and research reports are thoroughly reviewed by two independent reviewers. In this process the Editorial Office follows the rules of mutually anonymous peer reviewing. The reviewers should be competent in a relevant field of study. The editors also take in consideration personal or institutional issues that can influence the reviewers’ decisions.

The reviewers are asked to give opinion on scientific qualities of the text (argument, references, ethnographic data, originality, contribution to the field) and on formal aspects (language, writing style, quotations, format). If reviewers’ opinions radically differ, the editors ask a third scholar to review the paper in question.

On the basis of the reviews the manuscript is either accepted for publication, returned to the author for reworking or fully rejected. The author is expected to respond to all the reviewers’ comments – whether they accepted the comment or not, and if not, they should give a logical justification.

The editors are competent to consider whether the author’s modifications are sufficient and whether the author’s response was sufficiently substantiated. If the editors consider it is not, they further communicate with the author. In case of disagreement, they offer their opinion to the Editorial Board. The final decision on accepting / not accepting the manuscript is made by the Editorial Board.

If the author objects against the decision of the Editorial Office or does not consider the reviewer’s comments to be applicable, they can explain their objections in a letter to the Editorial Board. The reviewer and the editors should be informed about the letter and the Editorial Board should make the final decision and substantiate it in the response to the author.