Peer Review Process

Every submitted manuscript must be reviewed. The aim of the review is to help make decisions about whether to accept the work or reject it; moreover, through communication with the authors to help improve the quality of the work

Nova škola - Journal of the theory and practice of modern school and preschool education, uses double blind peer-review system. Each manuscript is reviewed by two independent reviewers from among distinguished international scientists and experts from different fields. The accepted time limit set to completing and forwarding the review to the editorial board is 10 days.

The choice of the reviewers is the decision of the editor in chief. The reviewers should have relevant knowledge concerning the topic the manuscript is about and should not be from the same institution as the author; moreover, reviewers should not be author(s) who have (recently) coauthored with any of the author(s) of the manuscript under consideration.

The identity of the reviewers remains unknown to the authors before, during and after the review process. Authors are recommended to avoid wording that could reveal their identity when writing papers. The editors guarantee that before sending the manuscript for the review, the personal data of the author will be removed from it (first of all, name and affiliation) and that all reasonable measures will be taken to ensure that the identity of the author remains unknown to the reviewers until the review process is completed.

During the procedure the reviewers work independently. The identity of the reviewers remains unknown to each other.  If their decisions are divergent (accept/reject), the editor in chief may look for another expert opinion.

During the procedure the editor in chief may request additional information (including primary facts) if it is indispensable for evaluating the scientific contribution of the manuscript. The editor and the reviewers should keep the information confidential; it must not be used for personal benefit.

The editorial board should monitor the quality of the reviews received. If the authors have serious and documented complaints regarding the review, the editorial board will reexamine its objectivity and adherence to academic standards. If there is doubt regarding the objectivity or quality of the review, the editor in chief will consult other reviewers.