Regulations for reviewing

 

Regulations on the procedure for reviewing scientific articles submitted as a proposal for publication in the journal Gubernaculum et Administratio

§ 1

Submitted scientific articles are subject to a preliminary assessment by the members of the Editorial Board, and with opinions by Subject Editors issued in justified cases. A text that does not meet editorial recommendations or requirements, including formal or quality requirements, may be rejected by the Editorial Board of the journal at any stage of editorial work.

§ 2

Two Reviewers holding at least a post-doctoral degree and not being members of the Editorial Board shall be appointed to assess each scientific article. In the case of foreign language texts, two reviewers holding at least a doctoral degree are appointed. In special cases, the text may be reviewed by a third (super)reviewer. The reviewers should be able to assess the work. If a reviewer is unable to assess the manuscript - particularly in terms of its content - they should notify the Editor.

§ 3

Reviewing is based on a two-way anonymous model, according to the "double-blind review process" procedure. This means that during the review process both the Authors should not know the identity of the Reviewers and the Reviewers should not know the identity of the Authors. No conflicts of interest between Authors and Reviewers should occur during the review process. If a Reviewer discovers a conflict of interest between him/herself and an Author, the Reviewer should refrain from reviewing and notify the Editor.

§ 4

The Editorial Board of the Journal forwards the scientific article together with the review sheet to the Reviewers. It is up to the Reviewer to determine whether the article under review is a) suitable for publication without changes; b) suitable for publication after taking into account the comments of the Reviewer, or whether a re-evaluation of the article is required after completing the article, or no re-evaluation is required after completing the article; c) not suitable for publication.

§ 5

The Editorial Board of the Journal shall forward the reviewer's or reviewers' comments to the Author of the reviewed article. It is the responsibility of the Author of the reviewed article to adjust the text according to the recommendations and remarks contained in the review - or if the Author does not agree with them - to refer to the review, including the recommendations and remarks contained in the review; within the deadline specified by the Editor. If the article requires re-evaluation and if the Author does not agree with the recommendations and remarks contained in the review, the Author should justify his/her position, informing the Editor via e-mail within a deadline specified by the Editor. The Author should remain in contact with the Editorial Office during the editorial work.