Manuscript evaluation process
The evaluation procedure comprises of two consecutive phases:1) Preliminary evaluation phase. In this phase, a manuscript is assessed for its conformity with the Publisher’s profile and the technical and formal requirements of the publication process. If the evaluation is positive, the contributor will be informed about the registration of the manuscript and the commencement of the substantive review process. For the purposes of a preliminary evaluation, the Publisher uses its internal Manuscript Evaluation Form. 2) Substantive review phase. This phase starts with the encoding and concealing of information about the author. The manuscript is then forwarded to two independent reviewers who specialise in the field. The reviewers are most commonly academics holding a post-doctoral degree or the full professor title. The purpose of the review process is to determine the academic relevance of the manuscript and its value for a given field of study. The reviewers have two months to present their written comments. If the reviewers differ in their assessment of a manuscript submitted for review, a third reviewer will be appointed. Due to the double-blind review requirements, the anonymity of the author and reviewers will be maintained throughout the review period. . Reviewers are obliged to notify the Publisher if they discover that the submitted manuscript is not an original work or violates copyrights. Reviewers may recommend corrections. If the recommended corrections are minor, and, in the reviewers’ opinion, do not mandate another review, the author will be asked to amend the manuscript accordingly. If major changes are required, a new review may be carried out after their introduction. In such a case, the corrected manuscript may be reviewed twice. If, following two additional reviews, the reviewers consider the manuscript unsuitable for publication, it will be rejected without the right to re-submit. After receiving review comments, the author has one month to submit the corrected version of the manuscript to the editorial team. Special cases will be dealt with separately by the Publisher. Review Comment Form ( a sample of the form can be accessed here). Negative review – if the Publisher rejects a manuscript, the Review Comment Form will briefly present conclusions of the manuscript’s evaluation, pointing to its shortcomings and justifying the refusal/negative review. Positive review – if the Publisher accepts a manuscript, the Review Comment Form will describe suggested corrections, if any are made. A positive review commences the pre-printing process (proofreading, typesetting, etc.). At the end of the publishing process, an advance copy of the manuscript is submitted to the contributing author for revision and approval. The contributor has five calendar days to approve the advance copy. If no reply is given within this time, the editorial team will assume that the contributor has expressed their tacit approval of the advance copy.
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PHASEAfter receiving a manuscript, the Publisher conducts a preliminary evaluation to ensure that the submitted manuscript is consistent with the substantive and thematic scope designated by the Publisher.
SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW PHASEEach submitted manuscript will be reviewed by two independent reviewers unconnected to the contributor’s affiliated academic institution. The Editorial Team will send all manuscripts that have been positively assessed during the in-house preliminary evaluation procedure for double-blind external review. The Publisher will make every effort to ensure that the majority of reviewers are academics with a post-doctoral degree or the full professor title. Due to the double-blind review requirements, the anonymity of the author and reviewers will be maintained throughout the review period. Reviewers will conduct their review based on the structure of the Review Comment Form. The purpose of the review process is to determine the academic relevance of the manuscript and its value for the relevant field of study. A reviewer may refuse to evaluate the submitted manuscript invoking a conflict of interest. Reviewers should refuse to conduct a review if they know the contributing author’s identity or become aware of the author’s identity in the course of the review process.