Before being published, all of the articles within a given volume undergo a peer review by at least two reviewers chosen by the Editorial Board.

The purpose of the review is to:

  • Identify the strengths as well as the possible points of development in the paper.
  • Be specific about the possible problems in the paper and make suggestions as to how the problems might be addressed.
  • Comment on the paper's contribution to the overall theme of the volume

Reviewers should evaluate the content of papers in reference to the following questions:

  • Does the paper present its content clearly and support its conclusions?
  • Does the paper address the aims and the theme of the volume?
  • Does the paper succeed in addressing these aims?
  • Is there relevant research that has not been cited or taken into account in the paper?

Structure of the review

Short summary

The review should begin with a brief synopsis of the article which summarizes the main claims put forward in the article, the way how these claims are justified and founded as well as the conclusions the author draws in the article. The purpose of this summary would be first of all to help the reviewer to clarify the content of the article as well as to provide important feedback to the author about how the subject matter of the article has been understood. The summary is also beneficial for the volume editor since it clarifies the potential disagreements between the reviewers.

Major comments

The reviewer's comments should be separated into 'major' and 'minor' points, which helps signpost to the author the most important criticisms. The major points should be related, for instance, to the importance and relevance of the article, the validity of the chosen methodology as well as the impact and overall credibility of the conclusions drawn by the author. Based on these comments, the reviewer should recommend whether the article should be:

1) Accepted without revision.
2) Accepted with slight revision.
3) Needs to be resubmitted with major revision.
4) Rejected.

Minor comments

The reviewer may indicate more minor and detailed comments which might be beneficial for the author in improving the article. However, these comments should be separated from the main points of criticism in order to avoid possible confusion.


The reviewer should be objective, professional and fair and treat the author with courtesy in the review. All criticism should be constructive even in cases where article is not recommended to be accepted for publication. The critique should be directed solely to the paper and not to the author, and it should provide fruitful feedback to the author for improving his work.








Back to Top