Peer review

Neograeca Bohemica follows the policy of a double-blind peer review of all submitted scholarly articles, whereas translations, book reviews and reports are excluded from the peer review process.

All submitted manuscripts which fulfil the relevant scholarly criteria and basic formal requirements (length of the article, footnotes and substantial bibliography) are anonymously delivered to two reviewers (whose names will not be revealed to the author) who are respected experts in a given field and are not part of the editorial office neither of the author’s parent institution. The peer review process takes approximately 2–3 months (in some cases, however, it may take longer).

Before the manuscript is submitted for a critical review process, all the information that would enable any identification of authorship is removed. In order to ensure complete anonymity of the peer review process, the author is required to accompany the paper submission by a cover page that includes the title of the paper and the name, affiliation and e-mail address of the author. The paper should include only its title, not the name of its author. The author should avoid self‑identification in the argument or documentation of the paper.

The peer review process primarily examines the following criteria:

• scientific quality and originality of the paper concerning the researched topic/issues;
• conceptual and methodological rigor (clarity of objectives, sufficient treatment of relevant literature, logical reasoning) of the reviewed manuscript;
• formal quality of writing (language and stylistic level) and other presentations (figures, tables);
• if the subject of the manuscript is in accordance with the overall topic of the journal;
• if the title of the manuscript is adequate for its content, informative, concise, and clear;
• if the abstract is comprehensive by itself and if the important and essential information of the article is included;
• if the key words are characteristic for the article.

Each author is notified about the result of the peer review process by e-mail, receiving anonymously the reviewers’ comments. In case of a suggested revision, the article is returned to the author with reviewers’ comments. If the author refuses to revise the manuscript (without giving relevant reasons), his or her paper is rejected. The final decision on the publication of texts falls within the competence of the editor in chief.

If a consensus for acceptance is not reached from the initial reviewers, another reviewer will be asked to review and to determine if the manuscript is acceptable for publication. If two reviewers do not recommend the acceptation of the manuscript, it is rejected from further evaluation.