1. Editorial review

The editors will review the manuscripts to evaluate if it fits into the profile of the journal, and that the basic demands to quality is present.

2. Peer review

2.1 The peers

If the manuscript passes point 1, the next step is peer review by two independent peers who hold a relevant doctoral degree or equivalent and know the actual topic(s) very well. As a main rule, one of the peers will be from the same country as the author, or will know the professional tradition in the country well.

Exceptionally there will be only one independent peer. In that case one of the editors or members of the editorial board will be peer number two.

2.2 Procedure of peer Review

The review is based on reciprocal anonymity. In addition to a general evaluation of the scientific level of the manuscript, the peer will be asked to evaluate:

  • The logical coherence, structure and legibility of the manuscript,
  • The current interest and value of the manuscript,
  • Whether the issues addressed are discussed and analysed in a proper way,
  • Whether the conclusions are supported by sources and data,
  • Whether the use of sources is conscientious and methodically acceptable,
  • Whether the references are satisfactory and in accordance with the editorial instructions.

The peer will also be asked whether he or she recommends publication; publication after improvements; or does not recommend publication.

3. Final review

The editors have the final decision whether a manuscript will be published.