Reviewing procedure

Reviewing rules and procedures applicable in the journal

  1. Two independent reviewers from outside the research institute affiliated by the author shall be constituted.
  2. Subject editors (scientific) try to get the best-qualified reviewers in the field.
  3. The editorial office applies the double-blind review procedure, that is the author/authors of the issues and the reviewers shall not know one another identity whatsoever.
    In other cases the declaration of no conflict of interest shall be signed by the reviewer.
    Any direct relationship between the reviewer and the author (in particular consanguinity to the second degree, matrimony), professional subordination relations, or direct scholarly cooperation within the two years preceding the preparation of the review shall be deemed as conflict of interest.
  4. To prevent misconduct in science (ghostwriting, guest authorship), editors will require the contributions from authors in the creation of the article. The primary responsibility will be borne by the person submitting the article.
    Ghostwriting is when someone has made a substantial contribution to the article, but neither their part as one of the authors has been disclosed, nor mentioned in the acknowledgments of the publication.
    The guest authorship is when the author’s share is negligible or even has not taken place, and their name is listed as the author or co-author.
  5. Editors expect information about the sources of publications funding, contribution to research institutions and other entities (financial disclosure).
  6. Editors will document all forms of scientific misconduct, especially breaking the rules of conduct obligatory in science.
  7. Within the reviewing of a paper the level of interest and the quality of written English shall be considered.
  8. A written review shall include the conclusion of the reviewer regarding the conditions on allowing the paper to be issued or its rejection. The paper is to be:
    - accepted,
    - accepted with minor changes,
    - accepted with major changes,
    - rejected.
  9. Reviews that do not meet the substantive and procedural requirements are not accepted.
  10. Pre-qualified by the editor-in-chief paper is sent to reviewers who comment on its acceptance or rejection. Reviewers are entitled to re-examine the revised text.
  11. In case of disputes there are appointed additional reviewers.
  12. Reviewers’ remarks are transmitted to the author whose duty is to correct the text.
  13. The final decision to qualify or reject the article belongs to the editor-in-chief in consultation with the members of the Editorial Board.
  14. The criteria for eligibility or rejection of the article are included in the review form. Review form is available on the website of the journal.
  15. The list of cooperating reviewers will be published in every fourth issue of the quarterly. In case of the scientific research papers issued irregularly the list of cooperating reviewers will be published in the last issue published in a calendar year. The list of cooperating reviewers will also be available on the website of the specific scientific research paper (a separate file "Cooperating reviewers").
  16. The names of reviewers of specific publications or specific issues of the journal are not disclosed.

Reviewer’s declaration reviewer’s declaration JMA.pdf

Review form review form JMA.pdf

Akceptuj─Ö