Reviewing Rules

  1. All contributions to the Slavic Studies journal are reviewed by at least two competent experts, one of whom must be an external reviewer.
  2. Throughout the process, reviewers act independently of each other. Reviewers are not aware of the identities of other reviewers. If the reviewers’ decisions are not the same (accept/reject), the editor-in-chief may request the opinion of other reviewers.
  3. Papers that do not meet the journal’s profile or scientific criteria are not subject to review, and a negative response is sent to the author.
  4. Reviewing is double-blind. The editorial board guarantees that before sending the manuscript for review, the author’s personal data (primarily name and affiliation) will be removed from it and that all reasonable measures will be taken to ensure that the author’s identity remains unknown to the reviewers until the review process is completed.
  5. The deadline for reviewing the paper is 60 days from the date of receipt by the editorial office.
  6. The reviewer receives a review form from the Slavic Studies journal, in which he/she must provide an objective picture of the paper, an analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. The reviewer makes comments, observations and suggestions, if any, and recommends the paper for publication in its original form or with corrections and additions, or does not recommend the paper for publication in the Slavic Studies journal.
  7. Authors are provided with excerpts from the reviews and given further instructions if any changes or additions are necessary.
  8. If the author disagrees with the reviewer’s opinion, the final decision on the publication of the paper is made by the Advisory Board.
  9. At least one person from a different institution than the author is included in the double-blind review process, so that all measures are taken to avoid conflict of interest. The Advisory Board makes special efforts to ensure that the reviewers and the author are not in close professional contact.
  10. In the event that the editor or a member of the Advisory Board wishes to publish a paper in the journal, the editor-in-chief independently determines the reviewers, taking into account any potential conflict of interest.
  11. The reviewers of a given paper must not include a person who has recently published a paper in co-authorship with a specific author.
  12. During the review process, the editor may request the author to provide additional information (including primary data), if it is necessary to make a judgement on the scientific contribution of the manuscript. The editor and reviewers must keep such information confidential and may not use it for personal gain.
  13. The Advisory Board board is obliged to ensure quality control of the review. In the event that the authors have serious and well-founded objections to the review, the Advisory Board will check whether the review is objective and whether it meets high academic standards. If there is any doubt about the objectivity or quality of the review, the editor will seek the opinion of other reviewers.
  14. The reviewer does not receive any monetary compensation (fee) for their work.