Skip to main content

Guidelines for Reviewers

1. Rights and obligations of reviewers

Responsibilities of reviewers and information about conflicts of interest are discussed in The Code of Ethics.

2. Review form

The review form is a structured document that consists of:

  1. questions to which the reviewer assigns “yes”, “to some extent” or “no” judgements;
  2. the part in which reviewers state reasons for their decisions or state their recommendations to the editors or to the author (section 2.1);
  3. recommendation (section 2.2).

2.1 Reasons and recommendations

Reviewers should give reasons for their decision and give their recommendations to the author and the editors. There is a relationship between the quality of the final version of the paper and the detail or specificity of the reviewer's comments and suggestions. Vague or non-specific comments and recommendations leave the author too much space to make changes. In that case, the reviewer does not provide clear and specific guidance to the author on how to meet the criteria of publishability on the pages of Filozofia. As a result, it is difficult for the editors to verify whether or not the author follows the reviewer's recommendations.

2.2 Recommendation

Within the overall assessment, reviewers should include a final recommendation to the editor. Reviewers should choose one of the following options:

  • Accept submission
  • Revisions required
  • Resubmit for review
  • Resubmit elsewhere
  • Decline submission
  • See comments