Guidelines

Reviews should be objective, without personal criticism of the author.

The review should be written clearly and supported by relevant arguments.

The rules for accepting or rejecting publications are included in the review form, which contains the basic criteria for evaluating the text.

The review must be in writing and end with an unambiguous declaration accepting or rejecting the article for publication.

The author receives the article (in electronic form) for correction and, after making the necessary corrections, returns it to the Editorial Office within 14 days of receipt. These corrections should be included in the final publication, after approval by the reviewer.

The review procedure is conducted in accordance with the principle of confidentiality and conditionally allows for the issuance of a positive opinion containing the reviewer's comments.

The final acceptance or rejection of the 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.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

The editors of Sacrum et Decorum require reviewers to recuse themselves in cases where there is a significant conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. However, just as financial interests need not invalidate the conclusions of an article, they do not automatically disqualify a person from reviewing it.

Reviewers are asked to inform the editors of any related interests, including financial interests as defined above, that may be perceived as significant. The editors will take these statements into account when evaluating the reviewers' recommendations.

Any selected reviewer who is unable to review an article or is aware that a prompt review will not be possible should inform the editor-in-chief of the journal.

Reviewers are expected to point out publications that the author has not mentioned or referred to in their article.

The reviewer should also inform the Editorial Board of any significant similarities, partial overlap of the content of the reviewed work with any other published work known to them, or suspicion of plagiarism.

The reviewer supports the editor-in-chief in making editorial decisions and may also assist the author in improving the work – through the editorial office and while maintaining mutual anonymity.

Editor-in-chief's decision:

After reviewing the reviews, the editor-in-chief makes the final decision and may:

- accept the text immediately,

- ask the author to make minor corrections,

- ask the author to make major corrections,

- reject the article entirely.

Appeals:

Authors may appeal against a decision to reject a manuscript.

Appeals are secondary to the normal work of the Editorial Office – a decision on the matter should be expected in approximately two months.

Only one appeal is permitted for each manuscript.

An appeal may only be lodged after receiving the review and the Editor-in-Chief's decision.

Final decisions on appeals will be made by the member of the Editorial Board reviewing the article in question.

As a result of an appeal, decisions are reversed only if the member of the Editorial Board is convinced that the original decision was a serious error. An appeal is justified if the reviewer made significant errors in fact or showed bias, but only if reversing that reviewer's opinion would change the original decision. Similarly, disputes over matters of fact need not be resolved unless they were critical to the outcome.