The review process

  1. The reviewer of a scientific monograph must meet all of the following criteria:
    • hold at least a doctoral degree (PhD);
    • be affiliated with at least one institution from among the ones included in the higher education and science system;
    • have an ORCID;
    • adhere to the COPE guidelines for peer review.
  2. Each submitted work is evaluated by at least one independent reviewer from outside the scientific unit which the author is affiliated with. The reviewer must be a specialist in the relevant field with a proven research record, meeting all criteria listed in point 1.
  3. In the review process, an open review model is applied, i.e. both the authors and reviewers are aware of each other's identities.
  4. The review is provided in writing on a relevant review form. The reviewer classifies the monograph as suitable for publication, unsuitable for publication or requiring significant modification and a (final) re-evaluation.
  5. In the case of monographs where each chapter has an individual author, the review must address each chapter of the work.
  6. The editorial team has the right to request the review to be supplemented if it is incomplete or it contains an overly brief opinion. The editorial team may also require changes to the tone or wording of the opinion if it fails to comply with COPE requirements.
  7. Authors of a monograph/chapters of a monograph that receive a positive evaluation are required to introduce the recommended revisions within a deadline specified by the editorial team. If the monograph/chapter of a monograph is not properly corrected or supplemented, the text is returned to the authors for further revision. Should a disagreement regarding the merits of the proposed changes occur, the authors are obliged to present a justification for their position.
  8. The full content of the review is not disclosed; however, fragments may be published, e.g. on the cover of the monograph.