Peer Review Process

All scholarly articles submitted to the Journal are subject to a double-blind peer review (the identities of the Authors and the Reviewers are not disclosed). This doesn't apply to texts destined for other sections of the journal.
Two external Reviewers with a doctorate degree or higher, not having a conflict of interest with those responsible for the authorship of the article including having a different affiliation, will assess manuscripts initially accepted by the Editors after a preliminary evaluation (technical screening, assessment in terms of content and form, and verification of the thematic scope).
Reviewers submit their reviews in writing (via email or the journal’s platform), together with the declaration of potential conflicts of interest and information whether they discovered the identity of the Authors. The Editors encourage them to include comments on ethics, originality, plagiarism, etc. in the review form.

The review is anonymous and confidential. Reviewers cannot use the knowledge about the reviewed text before it is published. If the review is not satisfactory, Editors may invite additional reviewers or discuss the case internally. If reviews are largely contradictory, the editors may decide to refer the text to the third reviewer. It is always the Editor-in-Chief who makes the final decision on any material to be published in the Journal.

Articles written by Editors, members of the Board or anyone else having a potential conflict of interest with the Journal (that needs to be disclosed) will be subject to the standard peer review procedure conducted by the Board members and Reviewers who do not have such correlation with the Authors.

All the decisions are impartial, independent, and based only on the quality of the submitted material, also in the case of special issues or supplements.
The Journal publishes a list of Reviewers, without disclosing details on the reviewed articles.