The editors may reject a submitted text without consulting the reviewers on the basis of an internal opinion of a member of the Editorial Board or the editorial advisor. The grounds for rejection are the lack of coherence of the article with the journal's profile, the Author's failure to meet minimum quality standards or the text's gross failure to meet editorial requirements.
Each text is reviewed by two independent external experts with significant scientific achievements in the field of science to which the publication relates. The reviewers do not belong to the Editorial Board of the journal and are from outside the unit where the Editor-in-Chief is affiliated.
The Editorial Board uses a review model where the Author and Reviewers do not know each other's identities (double blind review). The Editors do not disclose the identity of Reviewers of individual articles to the Authors. Along with the publication of a given issue, only the list of Reviewers working on that issue is publicised.
Reviews are drawn up in writing on a review form made available to Reviewers. Objectivity is required when drawing up reviews, any form of criticism referring strictly to the Author is considered as unacceptable. The Reviewer should formulate his opinions, comments and guidelines in a clear and comprehensible manner that will enable the Author to make the necessary or indicated changes. The review should end with an unequivocal recommendation as to publication, correction or rejection of the text. Upon explicit request, the Reviewer may review the Author's corrected version of the article.
In the case of two conflicting reviews, the Editorial Board may refer the text to a third external expert for evaluation, formulate additional comments and guidelines for the Author, or not allow the article to be published.
Each peer-reviewed article is covered by a confidentiality clause with respect to all content contained therein.