Peer Review

It is assumed that all people listed as authors of submitted papers meet both basic authorship criteria: (1) they contributed substantially to study planning, data collection or interpretation of results; and (2) wrote or critically revised the paper. It is also assumed that all people listed as authors are aware of it and have agreed to be listed. Acting against the above rules, especially every discovered case of scientific misconduct (ghostwriting, guest authorship, etc.), will be treated seriously by Editors. They will inform scientific bodies and/or employers of dishonest authors about it.

All submitted papers are initially evaluated by Editor-in-Chief according to the following criteria: compatibility of paper topic with journal policy, paper originality, importance and timeliness. The papers with insufficient priority are rejected. The other papers are sent to at least two expert referees for peer review. Peer referee identities and author identities are kept confidential from each other, which is double-blind peer reriew. The existence of a paper under review is not revealed to anyone other than peer referees and editorial staff. Final decision is made by Editor-in-Chief after receiving all referee opinions. The authors are informed about paper acceptance or rejection within two-three months.