Reviewing
The review process and rules for evaluating texts follow the guidelines of the Ministry of Education and Science and the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Preliminary review:
The editors of the yearbook 'Sacrum et Decorum' will acknowledge receipt of each article submitted for publication.
The submitted manuscript goes to the Editor-in-Chief who, after reading it, decides whether it corresponds to the profile of the journal. Texts that fall within the scope and appear, after an initial assessment, technically sound and scientifically sound will be sent to external reviewers.
Important:
Manuscripts that do not comply with the journal's ethical policy or do not meet the journal's standards will be rejected prior to review.
The editor-in-chief may reject an article without peer review if he/she considers that it does not meet the formal and content standards or does not comply with the journal's profile.
Incorrectly prepared texts will be returned to the authors for correction and resubmission.
After this initial analysis, all articles accepted by the Editor-in-Chief will undergo an external review process.
In the case of violations of publishing rules, publishing ethics or if problems with the scientific content arise, the article may be rejected, even though it was initially accepted for publication.
Form of review:
Double-blind-review-process
In the review process, both authors and reviewers do not know each other's identities - in accordance with the double-blind-review-process principle. Regardless of its application, the editors select reviewers so that there is no conflict of interest between author and reviewer.
Selection of Reviewers:
The Editorial Board selects two and, if necessary, three reviewers to evaluate each article.
The reviewers are recognised researchers who are specialists in the field.
Reviewers should not be current collaborators of the authors, nor should they have published with any of the authors or co-authors of the manuscript in the last five years.
Reviewers should be from institutions other than the authors.
The editors may select reviewers from authors frequently cited in the article.
The author may indicate a limited number of scientists who should not review the article (up to three named individuals or institutions); such exclusions will be honoured.
The decision of a member of the editorial board regarding the selection of reviewers is final.
Reviewer Responsibilities:
The editors of Sacrum et Decorum oblige reviewers to exclude themselves in cases where there is a significant conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. However, just as financial interests do not necessarily invalidate the conclusions of an article, they do not automatically disqualify a person from reviewing it.
We ask reviewers to inform the editors of any related interests, including financial interests as defined above, that may be perceived as relevant. Editors will take these representations into account when assessing reviewers' recommendations.
Any selected reviewer who is unable to review an article or is aware that it will not be possible to produce a review quickly should inform the journal's editor-in-chief.
Reviewers are expected to point out publications that the author has not mentioned or referred to in his article.
The reviewer should also inform the Editor of any significant similarity, partial overlap of the content of the reviewed work with any other published and known work, or suspicion of plagiarism.
The reviewer assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and may also assist the author in improving the paper - through the Editorial Board and with mutual anonymity.
Review process:
Reviews should be done objectively, without using personal criticism of the author.
The review should be written clearly and supported by relevant arguments.
The rules for qualifying or rejecting a publication are included in the review form, which includes the basic criteria for evaluating the text.
The review must be in writing and end with an unequivocal declaration accepting the article for publication or rejecting it.
The author receives the article for proofreading (in electronic form) and, after making the necessary corrections, sends it back to the Editor within 14 days from the date of receipt. They should be included in the final publication, after reviewer approval.
The review procedure is carried out with confidentiality and conditionally allows the issuance of a positive opinion, including the reviewer's comments.
The final acceptance or rejection of an article will be communicated to the authors.
The decision to publish or reject each article, taking into account external reports, will be made by the Editor-in-Chief.
Editor's decision:
After considering the review, the editor-in-chief makes the final decision and can:
- accept the text outright,
- ask the author for a minor correction,
- ask the author for a major revision,
- reject the article completely.
Appeals:
Authors may appeal against a decision to reject a manuscript.
Appeals are a secondary matter to the Editorial Board's normal procedure - you should wait approximately two months for a decision on the case.
Only one appeal is allowed for each manuscript.
Appeals can only be submitted after the Editor-in-Chief has received the review and decision.
Final decisions on appeals will be made by the member of the Editorial Board considering the article.
Following an appeal, decisions are only reversed if the member of the Editorial Board concerned is convinced that the original decision was a serious error. Consideration of an appeal is warranted if a referee has made material errors of fact or shown bias, but only if reversal of that referee's opinion would change the original decision. Similarly, disagreements over factual issues need not be resolved unless they were crucial to the outcome.
