Reviewers

All manuscripts are subject to double-blind review (except for book and conference reviews). Upon receipt of the manuscript, the executive editor reviews the compliance of the manuscript with the fundamental rules of the Journal. If it is in accordance with the objectives of the Journal and the Instructions for authors, the manuscript is referred to the review procedure. The review procedure is secret and implies the removal of all data that would reveal the author's identity.

The reviewers are prominent domestic and foreign scientists who deal with the manuscript's subject area. The manuscript is reviewed by two reviewers, and exceptionally by a third if the reviews deviate significantly from each other (for example, one reviewer recommends that the manuscript not be published, and another suggests publication with minor corrections; one reviewer suggests categorizing the manuscript as a professional article, and the other as a scientific review paper). Reviewers act in accordance with ethical principles - it is forbidden to use the information obtained through the review procedure in any way, and each statement by the reviewer must be substantiated.

In the review procedure, the reviewer is obliged to act objectively and responsibly. The reviewer evaluates the appropriateness of the title of the article, the relevance of the topic to the scientific field, the appropriateness of the abstract, the structure of the paper, the methodology used, the writing style, the citation of the sources used, the relevance of the literature, the argumentation of the claims made, and the originality of the paper. At the same time, it explains all the mentioned criteria.

Upon completion of the review procedure, the author is informed of the outcome and proposed categorization, along with the reviewer's comments. In the review feedback, all data that would indicate the identity of the reviewer is removed. Authors have the right to submit a written objection to the editor-in-chief on the received review. The Editor-in-Chief decides on the complaint after a previous discussion with the Editorial Board.

After the authors have made the necessary corrections in accordance with the review, if they did not take into account some of the reviewers' comments, they are obliged to explain it.

Manuscripts accepted for publication can be categorized as:

• original scientific paper – contains new, so far unpublished research results; the characteristic of this scientific work is its originality since it contains new knowledge in a certain scientific field,
• preliminary communication – a scientific work containing several new scientific findings; the publication of a scientific work is important because of the actuality of the knowledge gained through the conducted research, but the content points to further discussion and research,
• scientific review paper – a scientific work based on previously published research results on a scientific problem, which the author critically processes, applies new research questions, hypotheses, and methodology,
• professional paper – a work that does not have the distinction of being scientific, but the author presents the results of previous research to clarify a certain topic; the work lacks originality and contains information useful for practice.

According to the evaluation, the reviewer recommends:

• publication of the article in its unchanged form,
• publication of the article with minor or major corrections or
• refusal to publish the article.

If minor changes to the manuscript are proposed, the reviewer indicates whether his/her is necessary or an editorial review of the changes is sufficient.