If the editorial office considers that a submitted manuscript falls within the scope of the journal, the article undergoes double-blind peer review. This means that the anonymised manuscript is assessed for publishability by two independent expert reviewers. Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editorial office decides whether the article may be published and in which issue it will appear.

Reviewers are always researchers with the relevant expertise and language competence required for the manuscript under review; they are affiliated with research institutes or higher education institutions in Hungary or abroad. In the case of interdisciplinary articles, representatives of the relevant disciplines are involved in the review process. Invited reviewers are required to inform the editors of any potential conflict of interest. The list of contributing reviewers is included on the imprint page of each issue.

Review Criteria

During the review process, the principal criteria are the originality and significance of the topic, the substantive and formal quality of the article, including its structure, clarity and coherence, the clear formulation of its objectives, the presentation of research findings, and the applicability of the article’s conclusions and results. Authors are expected to comply with the length and formatting requirements set out in the Author Guidelines.

Stages of the Review Process

Reviewers are required to prepare their reports objectively, supported by professional arguments, and, where appropriate, supplemented with recommendations concerning the manuscript. On the reviewer evaluation form, they must clearly indicate whether they consider the manuscript suitable for publication in the journal, and must also state whether any changes are required and, if so, to what extent.

Reviewers may select one of the following recommendations: Accept without revision / Accept subject to minor revisions / Revise and resubmit following major revisions / Refer the manuscript to the editorial office for further decision in view of the issues raised / Reject.

If both reviewers support publication of the manuscript, the manuscript is accepted for publication by the journal. The editor-in-chief informs the author(s) by email of the decision regarding publication and its date, enclosing the reviewers’ reports and, where applicable, the manuscript with comments. The editor-in-chief also specifies the deadline for submitting the final version of the manuscript. When finalising the article, the author must indicate on a separate form (available here) what changes have been made in response to the reviewers’ comments. Following revision, the editor verifies whether the final version is suitable for publication. The editorial office reserves the right to reject a manuscript even if both reviewers support its publication; in such cases, the author(s) will receive detailed information on the reasons for rejection.

If the reviewers do not support publication of the manuscript, the Editorial Board forwards the reviewers’ reports to the author(s), together with the reasons for rejection. In the event of two conflicting reviews, the editor-in-chief may invite a third independent expert to review the manuscript, and the final decision is made in light of this additional review.

The average duration of the review process, depending on the reviewers’ recommendations and the extent of the revisions required, is 5–6 months.