Instructions for reviewers

All submitted papers undergo two double-blind peer-reviews, meaning that the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the author, nor is the author's identity revealed to the reviewers.

Once they accept to do the peer-review, the reviewers receive the paper and the peer-review form. They must submit their peer-review within a maximum period of one month. Reviewers must be impartial and objective in their evaluation. Their assessment should aim to improve the quality of the manuscript.

If they identify any form of unethical behavior in the author's paper, they are required to report it to the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board. The paper submitted to the reviewer is considered confidential, and the reviewer must not disclose its content to anyone or use it for personal research during the peer-review process.

If desired, the reviewer may request to see the author's revisions of the paper. In cases where the reviewers provide differing evaluations, a third peer-review may be requested.

After the peer-review process is completed, papers are categorized as follows:

• Original scientific paper – presents original and unpublished results of scientific research.
• Preliminary communication – provides new and unpublished research findings that are still in progress but need to be published due to their significance.
• Review article – offers a concise, original, and critical overview of a specific issue, demonstrating the author's original contribution.
• Professional article – shares useful knowledge and experiences relevant to a specific profession but does not meet the criteria of scientific research.

The final decision on the categorization of the paper is made by the Editors and the Editorial Board of the yearbook.