Instructions for reviewers

Instructions for the preparation of a peer review

The peer review process guarantees that submissions are assessed to a high quality and objectively. It is a crucial mechanism for decision making as to whether a submission is accepted or rejected by the journal. The review process also provides feedback to the authors on how they can polish the manuscript to make it unconditionally publishable in the journal.

• Manuscripts sent to the Editorial Department for publication in the peer-reviewed part of the journal are reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the field of the manuscript submitted.
• In all cases, reviewers are contacted by the journal’s Editorial Department. The journal’s Editorial Board recommends reviewers based on the content of the article.
• Reviewers and authors of reviewed manuscripts remain blinded.
• Reviews are archived as in-house documents of the Editorial Department.
• Reviewers may refuse to provide a review on grounds of a conflict of professional interest (see “Duties of reviewers” under Publication Ethics).
• Reviewers may not redistribute a submission, provide it to others, or misuse the information or knowledge contained therein for personal or other purposes.
• Reviewers should follow the editorial guidelines and meet the deadline for delivery of the review. The standard turnaround time for a review is 3–4 weeks.
• The reviewer’s factual and general comments should be stated clearly in the review or in the manuscript. The conclusion of the review should clearly indicate whether and under what conditions the reviewer recommends the paper for publication.
• Reviewers should draw the author’s attention to significant published titles on the topic that are missing. Reviewers are asked to write their opinion in the attached form and send it electronically or on paper to the Editorial Department.

Review form

Please deliver the completed form electronically within one month of receipt of the submission for review. A scan of the back cover with the reviewer’s signature would be appreciated.

Duties of reviewers:

• Reviewers must remain objective.
• Reviewers must not misuse information contained in the submission they are reviewing for personal or other purposes.
• Reviewers may refuse to provide a review on grounds of a conflict of professional interest.
  The following are considered to be conflicts of interest:
  • A benefit to the reviewer professionally, financially, or personally were the submission under review to be approved or rejected;
  • Cooperation on the project in the last five years;
  • A fundamental difference of opinion on the central theme of the submission under review.

• Unless a reviewer declines in writing to draw up a review for any of the above reasons, the Editorial Department assumes that there is no conflict of interest.
• Reviewers should draw the author’s attention to significant published titles on the topic that are missing.
• The names of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.
• Reviews are archived as in-house documents of the Editorial Department.

Fill in the online form or email the completed form in .docx format to redakce@nacr.cz