Peer Review Process

All scientific articles published in “Postmodernism Problems” have undergone a peer review process in which they are approved for publication.

Authors submit manuscripts to the editorial office through the online system on the journal’s website. A confirmation letter is sent by the scientific secretary to confirm receipt of the manuscript.

All research articles published in Postmodernism problems undergo a rigorous peer review process. The first review is based on an initial editor screening, which is followed by a more detailed review by at least two anonymous reviewers.

The editor-in-chief first reviews the manuscripts. They are checked to see if they meet the scope of the journal and its formal requirements. If the text does not meet the journal's theme, the author is informed by the scientific secretary that the manuscript is rejected at this stage and is filed or returned, if requested.

If the manuscript meets the goals and scope of the journal and formally complies with the instructions to authors, it is sent for review to two independent reviewers who have given their prior consent.

All submitted articles that are deemed suitable are subject to a mandatory double-blind review process. The purpose of the review is to help the editors of the issue or the editor-in-chief decide whether or not to publish the specific reviewed articles.

Through the editorial communication with the authors, the reviewers usually help the authors to improve their text, respectively, the quality of the published articles in the individual issues.

Double-blind review requires that the reviewers appointed by the Editor-in-Chief or the editors of the issue are not aware of the identity of the authors, and the authors, in turn, are not aware of the identity of the reviewers. The review period accepted by the journal is up to 3 weeks.

Invited reviewers must be well acquainted with the subject of the manuscript, must not be from the authors' own institution, and must be known not to have recently published jointly with the authors. Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with respect to the study, the authors, and/or the sources of funding for the study. If potential conflicts of interest are identified during the review process, reviewers must report them to the editor-in-chief immediately. Furthermore, any selected reviewer, when he/she feels unqualified to review the research presented in the manuscript, or finds that the promised review deadline will prove impossible, must notify the editor immediately.

Reviews must be based on an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the author is not allowed. Reviewers must clearly express their views with supporting arguments.

It is a mandatory condition that all manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents.

The reviewer reads and evaluates the manuscript and ultimately sends a formal review report to the Editor-in-Chief.

Each submitted manuscript is evaluated based on the scientific standards generally shared by scientists:

• originality of the contribution to the scientific field;
• soundness of the theory and the methodology used;
• skills for analysis and comparison of the obtained results with other studies;
• added value of the study;
• a clear academic style of expression.

The two reviewers of a given article act independently of each other and are not aware of each other's decisions. In cases where the two reviewers disagree with their assessments of acceptance or rejection, a third super-reviewer is invited.

In cases where there are convincing objections from specific authors and in cases of doubts about the objectivity of the assessments by certain reviewers, the editor-in-chief may decide to invite additional reviewers.

When accepting manuscripts without the need for additional editing, the manuscripts are sent for formatting and preparation for publication to the secretary-general.