{"id":7109,"date":"2026-08-11T10:30:03","date_gmt":"2026-08-11T08:30:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.stredoeuropskepohlady.fss.ukf.sk\/?page_id=7109"},"modified":"2026-08-11T10:30:03","modified_gmt":"2026-08-11T08:30:03","slug":"peer-review-process","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.stredoeuropskepohlady.fss.ukf.sk\/?page_id=7109","title":{"rendered":"Peer Review Process"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Stage 1: Initial Editorial and Ethical Screening (Desk Review)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Upon receipt of a manuscript, the Editorial Office verifies:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>its relevance to the journal&#8217;s scope;<\/li>\n<li>compliance with the <strong>Author Guidelines<\/strong> and the completeness of the submitted materials;<\/li>\n<li>the adequacy of manuscript anonymisation;<\/li>\n<li>the quality of the language.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Originality Screening (Plagiarism Detection):<\/strong> Before being sent for peer review, every manuscript undergoes an originality check using plagiarism detection software (e.g. <em>iThenticate, Turnitin, or Crossref Similarity Check<\/em>). If plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or any form of inappropriate text manipulation is suspected, the manuscript will be rejected immediately.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If the manuscript does not meet the journal&#8217;s requirements, the Editorial Office may reject it without external peer review (<em>Desk Rejection<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Stage 2: Double-Blind Peer Review<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Original Research Articles, Review Articles, and Scholarly Articles are subject to a <strong><em>Double-Blind Peer Review<\/em><\/strong>. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors.<\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>Each manuscript is evaluated by at least <strong>two independent reviewers<\/strong> with recognised expertise in the relevant field, who are normally affiliated with institutions other than that of the author(s).<\/li>\n<li>If the reviewers&#8217; recommendations differ substantially, the Editorial Office will appoint a third independent reviewer.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Manuscript Evaluation Criteria<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>originality and scholarly contribution to the field;<\/li>\n<li>methodological rigour and logical structure;<\/li>\n<li>quality of the argumentation and engagement with current scholarly literature and relevant sources;<\/li>\n<li>clarity and validity of the conclusions;<\/li>\n<li>compliance with ethical standards.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Editorial Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Based on the reviewers&#8217; reports, the <strong>Editor-in-Chief<\/strong> or the <strong>handling editor<\/strong> makes one of the following decisions:<\/p>\n<ol style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>Accept as is<\/li>\n<li>Revisions required (minor revisions or major revisions<strong>)<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>Reject<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If revisions are requested, the author is required to submit a revised version of the manuscript together with a written response to the reviewers&#8217; comments within the specified deadline.<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Appeals Procedure<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Authors have the right to submit a written appeal to the <strong>Editor-in-Chief<\/strong> requesting reconsideration of a rejection decision if they believe that the editorial process involved a procedural error or an inappropriate scholarly assessment. After reviewing the appeal, the <strong>Editor-in-Chief<\/strong> may appoint a new independent reviewer or refer the matter to the <strong>Editorial Board<\/strong> for further consideration.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Stage 1: Initial Editorial and Ethical Screening (Desk Review) Upon receipt of a manuscript, the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.stredoeuropskepohlady.fss.ukf.sk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7109"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.stredoeuropskepohlady.fss.ukf.sk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.stredoeuropskepohlady.fss.ukf.sk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.stredoeuropskepohlady.fss.ukf.sk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.stredoeuropskepohlady.fss.ukf.sk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7109"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.stredoeuropskepohlady.fss.ukf.sk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7109\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7110,"href":"https:\/\/www.stredoeuropskepohlady.fss.ukf.sk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7109\/revisions\/7110"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.stredoeuropskepohlady.fss.ukf.sk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7109"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}