INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS

Reviews are conducted to ensure that only high-quality scientific and professional papers are published. The Editorial Board seeks to ensure the objectivity, excellence, and originality of all works published. Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining these high standards. For this reason, all submitted manuscripts undergo peer review to achieve the aforementioned level of quality.

The initial assessment of the manuscripts is carried out by the Editor in Chief. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are typically not sufficiently original, contain serious professional and scientific shortcomings, are poorly written, or do not align with the goals and scope of the journal.

All articles are subject to a double-blind peer review procedure, meaning that reviewers remain anonymous to the author(s) during and after the evaluation process, and the identity of the author(s) is unknown to the reviewers. Each submitted manuscript is reviewed by at least two external reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript. Reviewers are requested to carefully read and evaluate the manuscript in accordance with the guidelines provided in the peer review form. If the reviewers’ reports are not in agreement with each other or if the review process is unreasonably delayed, the Editor in Chief may seek a third review.

Each invited reviewer who feels qualified to assess a manuscript should respond within a reasonable time and submit the review by the agreed deadline. If unavailable, the reviewer should notify the editorial board and decline the assignment. Reviewers must inform the editorial board if they suspect a conflict of interest (e.g., personal or professional relationships, competition, financial interests) and recuse themselves if their impartiality could be questioned. The Editor-in-Chief decides whether such conflicts disqualify the reviewer.

Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. They may not be shared or discussed with others without editorial permission and may never be used for personal gain.

The reviewer should categorize the paper as follows:

• Original Scientific Paper: A paper which is characterised by the originality of its conclusions or which presents previously unpublished original results of scientific research;
• Preliminary Communication: A paper that presents the primary findings of research in progress which, due to current interest, require immediate publication but without the level of deep and thorough study required for a scientific paper;
• Review Article: A paper that contains a detailed and comprehensive critical review of a certain problem area but with no significant originality of results;
• Professional Paper: A paper which contains information and experience relevant for a certain profession but without scientific characteristics.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly; communication occurs solely through the Editorial Board. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and constructively to help authors improve their manuscripts.

Reviewers must alert the editors to any similarities or overlaps between the submitted manuscript and previously published works known to them, and identify any sources the authors may have failed to cite. All reused arguments or ideas must be properly referenced.

Reviewers should be familiar with COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and follow them during the review process.

The Reviewers shall abide by the Generative AI Use Statement and by the Code of Ethics set out above.