Peer review

Each contribution received by the editorial board is sent to two reviewers. The review process is anonymous on both sides and consists of two parts: one evaluation is sent to the editorial board (regarding the originality of the contribution and its quality), and anonymous comments are sent to the author of the contribution (which include an assessment of the paper’s argumentative structure, its language, the cogency of the abstract and key words, the bibliography, etc.). On the basis of the comments, the author is then asked to edit the manuscript. In the case where the contribution is rejected, the paper is eliminated from further consideration.

 

Stages of the review process and timeline

Contributions should be submitted to editorial board by email (shb@phil.muni.cz).

 

1) Initial review by the editorial board

After submission to the editorial board, the manuscript is reviewed internally by members of the editorial board and in the case where it fulfils the requirements of a manuscript published in the journal the editorial board then selects two reviewers. Otherwise, the manuscript is sent back to the author with a rejection from the editorial board. Specific reviewers are selected with regard to their independence and professional competence. They are required to disclose any potential conflict of interest.

Duration: 4 weeks.

 

2) Peer review

The reviewers receive an anonymised version of the manuscript and write an evaluation on a standardised form (see below). They may also comment on problematic passages directly in the text (in which case the comments are anonymised before being forwarded to the authors). The editors prepare a report on the results of the peer review process on the basis of the reviewers’ opinions, which is then forwarded to the author. If the conclusions of the reviewers are diametrically opposed, the editors request the opinion of a third reviewer.

Duration: 8 weeks (12 weeks in the case where a third review is required).

 

3) Informing the author about the result of the review process and possible modifications to the text

The author is informed as to the result of the peer review process by means of a summary report. The outcome of the review will be one of the following alternatives:

(a) The study may be printed without corrections: the text is then submitted to the technical editors and the author is informed of the outcome of the peer review process and its inclusion in the relevant issue of the journal

(b) The study may be printed after linguistic and formal errors have been corrected: the author is informed of the result of the peer review process and invited to correct the errors within 4 weeks.

The manuscript is then forwarded to the technical editors and included in the relevant issue of the journal.

(c) The study can be printed after the correction of factual errors, additions to the literature, etc.: the author is informed of the result of the review process and invited to make corrections and add any necessary information to the study within 6 weeks. After the incorporation of revised and additional elements have been considered by the editors, the text is forwarded to the technical editors and included in the relevant issue of the journal.

(d) The study may be printed after a complete revision of the text and a second review: the author is informed of the result of the review process and a date is set by mutual agreement for the author to submit the revised text for a second review. The review procedure is restarted from stage 2.

(e) The study is not recommended for publication: the author is informed of the result of the review process and the text is rejected by the editors.