Peer Review

Each submission intended for publication in the Reviewed Papers section has to undergo an expert review. Normally, the process includes reviews by two reviewers; the editorial office, however, reserves the right to request the opinions of additional reviewers (regarding the multidisciplinary views, and other professional and linguistic qualities of submissions) in order to produce all the relevant information for the review report. The review procedure is a necessary precondition for publishing a submission in the section 'Reviewed Papers' where original scientific papers or summary papers are published; 'Methodologies', and 'Case studies'.

Original papers that present new findings, but are intended for other sections of the journal may also be subject to the review procedure. Under normal circumstances, articles intended for other sections than 'Reviewed Papers' (i.e. 'Inspirations', 'Reviews', 'Information', and 'Letters and Opinions') do not, however, typically go through the review process.

Review Procedure Description

Submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the editorial office (and the editoral board where necessary). In this stage, the submission can be rejected on the basis of serious formal or content failures. Otherwise, the manuscript is sent for review to two independent reviewers, who are chosen by the editorial office based on the character and field of the manuscript. The text is anonymised before the review process.

The reviewers each develop a review report; they follow the Reviewer Form, which forms the basis for quality comparison of different submissions. Above all, the review report contains a recommendation whether the offered text should or should not be published, including a justification and the specifications of the recommendation. The editorial office base their publication decision on the review reports. The following decisions are possible:

• Publish without any changes
• Publish with minor changes
• Publish with substantial changes
• Reject, but offer complete redraft of the submission (new review procedure required)
• Reject (in case both reviewers suggest this option)

The editorial office sends the review reports and a summary commentary back to the author along with the decision. The author amends the text depending on the reports and the commentary. If the author is requested to redraft the text or the text is rejected, the commentary shall state the main reasons. Should the author disagree with the opinions provided in the commentary, the author may explain his or her reasons in a letter which the editor shall present to the editorial board.

The ultimate decision regarding the acceptance of a submission for publication is made by the editorial board; the final decision is made following the approval of an absolute majority of voting board members. The editorial office reserves the right to make minor modifications to the text prior to publication; authors get the chance to proof read the final version of the article online before the official date of publication.

Submissions that fail to meet the acceptance criteria for the reviewed sections may only be subjected to a new review procedure following substantial modifications or rewriting. Publication of a text rejected in a review procedure in any of the non-reviewed sections is only permissible if it has been rejected on grounds other than poor quality (such as a different discipline).

Review Procedure Anonymity

The identity of both authors and reviewers is kept strictly confidential. The editorial office reserves the right to request approval to publicly disclose the review report for an accepted submission after the review procedure. Both the author's and reviewer's approval then makes it possible to publish part of the review alongside the submission, which should help new authors share the experience of writing a scientific paper. The reviewer may also consent to the disclosure of their name. In such case, their name is disclosed and published along with the review. The editorial office is obliged to comply with an author's or reviewer's wish not to have their name published.

Acknowledgements

The editorial office thanks all reviewers who review papers for Envigogika. It is they who make it possible to publish the journal in its current form.