Review process

Review process

Journals

The rules of reviewing journals published by WUW are available on their websites.

Monographs

1. After the author submits the work, the publisher (WUW) chooses two independent reviewers.

2. If the reviewer agrees to review, the deadline is determined with the publisher and the reviewer receives a formal commission and the general guidelines for the review.

3. The reviewer provides a descriptive review with an attached summary table, in which the reviewer can choose one of the following options:

• accept to publish the work without adjustments;
• accept to publish the work after introducing the postulated adjustments without the need to review it again;
• accept to publish the work after introducing the postulated adjustments and after conducting another review;
• do not accept the work for publishing.
  

4. The publisher decides based on the review:

• if both reviews are positive, the publication is accepted for publishing;
• if both reviews are negative, the publication is rejected;
• if one review is positive and the other is negative, a third review is commissioned and based on that, the publication is accepted or rejected.

5. In case another review of the work is required after adding adjustments, the review can be conducted by the original reviewer or a different reviewer appointed by the publisher.

6. After receiving the review from the publisher, the author is obligated to draw up a response to the reviews and to optionally make adjustments in the text.

Ethics of COPE and CSE

The following ethical rules regarding the reviews are described in accordance with the instructions from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Council of Science Editors (CSE).

The reviewer carrying out the review should:

• have competences in the field in which the work is being published, the publisher (WUW) chooses two independent reviewers – individual scholars, affiliated outside the academy of the author, who have adequate specialised knowledge enabling the substantive evaluation of the reviewed work;
• inform the publisher about the potential conflict of interests; the reviewer cannot stay in close relations with the author, neither personal nor professional (scientific cooperation, subordination, financial benefits), if there is a conflict of interest between the reviewer and the author, the reviewer should refuse to carry out the review;
• maintain data confidentiality; the reviewer should not appropriate or use the reviewed work for their own needs or benefits, the reviewer also cannot share data included in the reviewed work with anyone not associated with the publishing process; the content of the works and the decisions made during the publishing process are confidential;
• remain objective while evaluating the work; the review should not be influenced by personal or professional views of the reviewer; the evaluation of the work should only refer to the substantive contents, it cannot take into account author’s race, origin, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nationality;
• constructively criticise using substantive arguments; reviewer’s comments should indicate the positive and negative aspects of the work; pointing out errors should be substantive, clear, and comprehensible, including the ways to amend them in order to improve the quality of the work;
• conduct the review on time; the reviewer is obligated to conduct the review in a punctual way and in accordance with the publisher’s instructions; if the reviewer cannot hand in the work on time, the reviewer should inform the publisher about it.