Peer Review

Reviewing procedure

1. All new contributions are initially assessed by the Editors-in-Chief to determine the suitability of each manuscript for the journal. After a positive initial assessment, all scientific manuscripts are reviewed by at least two referees.

2. The reviewers are competent in the subjects covered by the article or in the field of science to which the article refers. The reviewers are appointed by the Associate Editors. At least one of the reviewers is affiliated with a foreign institution in a country other than that of the author. The editors ensure that there are no conflicts of interest between any of the reviewers and the authors. The authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

3. The outcome of the review will be put in written form. The reviewers will be asked to fill out a questionnaire also. The review includes a clear conclusion as to whether the article should be published or rejected.

4. Two positive reviews by external reviewers determine acceptance of an article for publication, and two negative ones determine rejection. If the two reviews reach opposing conclusions a third reviewer is appointed, and his/her assessment is decisive.

5. After review, the authors will be informed of the results of the evaluation. When an article is deemed to require changes, the authors will have an opportunity to improve it according to the reviewers’ suggestions.

6. The authors are required to make the necessary corrections indicated by the reviewers. In case of disagreement with the reviewers, the authors should submit a written reply to the reviewers’ comments. The Associate Editor or Editor-in-Chief will consider whether the authors have justified their disagreement with the corrections suggested by the reviewer.

7. At the request of the reviewer, the corrections that the authors have made may be reviewed again.

8. Once a year a list of the reviewers from the calendar year is published on the journal webpage and in a printed issue of the journal.