The articles are subjected to a standard bilaterally anonymous peer-review process, while none of the reviewers can be a member of the same workplace as an author or a co-author, and may not be in any other way in a conflict of interest regarding the peer-reviewed paper. In case the two reviews significantly diverge, the paper is submitted to a third reviewer. The editor in chief handles a selection of reviewers. The editorial board decides on the final approval of the article for publication on the basis of anonymous reviews.

The author will receive a decision on filing the manuscript for a review process and the outcome of the review process within 3 months of a receipt of the manuscript by the editor’s office. The author will also obtain a report confirming manuscript delivery from the editorial staff.

The author will receive the comments of the reviewers from the editor’s office and their decisions while maintaining the anonymity of the reviewer. The author is obliged to reflect on the essential comments of the reviewers in the final version of his paper. The editor’s office reserves the right to edit the received manuscripts and refuse their publication in case the comments of the reviewers have not been incorporated into the text, or the author fails to provide professionally relevant and thus scientifically substantiated reasons that prevent him from observing such requirements.

Approved papers undergo a proofreading process. Still, poor grammar and format may be a reason for the rejection of the manuscript, even when the content-related focus of the journal has been complied with.