Review procedure

Rules for reviewing scientific manuscripts by the Editorial Team of the Yearbook of the Institute of East-Central Europe

  1. The Editorial Team makes a preliminary assessment of the submitted manuscript on an interactive PDF form.
  2. The texts that will be initially accepted and checked with an anti-plagiarism program are later got over to two independent external reviewers (outside the Editorial Office) who:
    • are competent to assess the manuscript and hold at least a doctoral degree in the field related to that of the manuscript;
    • highly-respected in the scientific community;
    • are not employed in a scientific institution with which the author of the manuscript is affiliated;
    • do not have a conflict of interest or professional relationship with the author;
    • in the last two years, have not entered into direct scientific collaborations with the author of the manuscript;
    • are not in close personal or family relations with the author of the manuscript;
    • in the case of a manuscripts written in a foreign language, at least one of the reviewers is professionally affiliated with a foreign institution operating in a country other than that of the author’s professional affiliation.
  3. The reviewer and the author do not know each other’s personal information: the double-blind review rule applies.
  4. The Editorial Team provides the reviewer with a brief description of the publication (title, number of characters, short summary of the manuscript) so the reviewer can decide whether to review the manuscript. The Editorial Team also indicates a maximum deadline for submitting the review.
  5. Reviewers are bound by confidentiality and not permitted to use any knowledge obtained from the reviewed manuscript prior to its publication.
  6. The review is prepared on a special form (PDF) prepared by the Editorial Board and forwarded to the reviewer.
  7. The review must recommend whether the manuscript is acceptable for publication, needs to be corrected prior to print or should be rejected.
  8. The reviewer forwards the review to the Editorial Team, which archives it for at least five years from the receipt of the document.
  9. The Editorial Team may refuse to accept a review if it does not meet the substantive and formal requirements, especially if it is vague, or critical or favourable opinions are not justified, or if there is a confusion between the content of the review and its conclusion.
  10. The comments of the reviewer, with reference to required modifications or rejecting the manuscript, are anonymised before forwarding to the author of the manuscript, who is given a deadline to revise the manuscript. After the manuscript is revised or completed, the reviewer may be invited to review the manuscript again within the deadline agreed upon with the Editorial Team.
  11. The final decision on publishing accepted manuscript is made by the Editorial College of the IESW Yearbook.
  12. Each year, the Editorial Team posts an updated list of reviewers on the Yearbook’s website, including their academic degrees, titles and institutional affiliations.
  13. The reviewer is obliged to submit the required statements on the PDF form in Annex 2 and Annex 3 to the Code of Ethics.