For Reviewers

Studies are subject to anonymous reviewing procedures: each text is evaluated by two specialists from the related area. Based on peer-reviews assessment, the magazine’s editorial board decides on the conditions to publish/not publish the offered text. Reviews are internal works of the editors and are archived.

The editors ask reviewers of contributions to keep in mind the following in making their evaluation:

Specialised viewpoint

Studies represent original scholarly works in accordance with the magazine’s thematic focus. A problem is clearly formulated and is relevant and interesting within the context of the relevant specialised area. The methodology and argumentation are adequate to the given subject. Work with empirical data is correct.

Structure and stylistic level

The text is well-arranged and logically coherent. The individual parts of the text – introduction, overview of hitherto findings, discussion of methods, conclusions – are of ample extent. The title, summary and the essay itself are in harmony. Tables and pictorial material are relevant and appropriately positioned in the text.
The contribution’s text observes spelling and grammar standards and contains clear and comprehensible expression. The specialised terminology is properly used.

Formal necessities

The contribution observes the editor’s instructions for authors of manuscripts, especially with regard to consistent use of the magazine’s citation customs. The study contains a Czech and English title, corresponding summary and key words.

Research ethics

The contribution is not a case of plagiarism or deliberately inaccurate. All sources are appropriately cited. The contribution does not unjustifiably yield other ethical problems.


The reviewing evaluation must conclude with a final decision in the following degrees:
  • recommend for publication with no suggestions (e.g. small changes),
  • recommend for publication with reservations (deficiencies require additions or more substantial changes).
  • recommend for publication after reworking (a valuable theme is dealt with in a way inappropriate for printing),
  • do not recommend for publication (give primary reason).

The editors request that reviewers‘ evaluations be at least one standard page long and completed within 4 weeks of receiving the text. If a reviewer cannot accept a text, especially in case of coflict of interests, he/she should inform the editors immediately.
Along with the evaluation, please provide the editors with the following information: name, date of birth, address, personal ID number, bank details. By providing this information the reviewer gives his/her consent for the magazine publisher to use it to conclude a contract based on which reviewers will be paid royalties.