For reviewers

Each submission first undergoes an editorial review, i.e. an assessment by at least two members of the editorial board depending on the topic of the manuscript. If the topic is appropriate and of sufficient quality, it is sent for peer review. All members of the editorial board have the manuscripts at their disposal for any comments.

At least two independent reviewers assess the article sent in MS Word or a preview PDF file including all supplementary materials (figures/tables) in terms of the originality of the work, the professional level, argumentation and language. The reviewers also focus on the accuracy of the abstract and keywords, the listed bibliography, the quality of illustrations and their relevance and other aspects. The reviewer submits a review form (available for download below) – all objections and recommendations are listed in detail within the form or as comments directly in the manuscript.

Based on the reviewers’ and the editors’ comments and objections, the author of the submission is then requested to revise their manuscript. Along with the revised manuscript, the author also submits their “response to the reviewer’s comments” which briefly states their response to the individual comments by the reviewers (and editors) in the following form: revised / revised, but… / not revised because…

The editors will review the revised manuscript; if there are any disputed issues, they may request cooperation with the reviewers and other members of the editorial board again. The accepted paper is sent for language proofreading by a native speaker. If the reviewers do not recommend a manuscript for publication in the Přehled výzkumů journal, it is excluded from further consideration.

Reviewers’ responsibility

  • Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
  • Objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inappropriate. Referees should express their opinions clearly with supporting arguments.
  • Avoiding conflicts of interest – Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors or institutions connected to the paper.
  • Acknowledgement of sources – Reviewers should identify cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. Reviewers should notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.