Peer Review Process

The journal Nova škola applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and integrity of all published manuscripts. Neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other’s identities during the review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Section Editor. At this stage, the manuscript is assessed for:

alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
originality and relevance of the topic
compliance with submission guidelines
basic methodological soundness

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).

2. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on:

academic qualifications and publication record
subject-matter expertise
absence of conflicts of interest

Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors and must declare any potential conflict of interest prior to accepting the review.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal operates a double-blind review system, ensuring anonymity of both authors and reviewers.

Reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:

originality and contribution to the field
methodological rigor and validity
clarity and structure of the manuscript
relevance of references and theoretical framework
overall scientific and academic quality

4. Review Outcomes

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editorial decision may be one of the following:

Accept without revisions
Minor revisions required
Major revisions required
Reject

If revisions are required, authors are expected to submit a revised version along with a detailed response to reviewers’ comments.

5. Revision and Re-evaluation

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. The editorial team ensures that all reviewer comments have been adequately addressed before making a final decision.

6. Final Decision

The final decision on manuscript acceptance is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the responsible editor, based on reviewers’ recommendations and the overall quality of the manuscript.

7. Timeline

The journal strives to ensure an efficient and transparent review process:

initial editorial screening: up to 7 days
peer review process: 4–6 weeks
final decision: within 8 weeks from submission

8. Ethical Standards in Peer Review

The peer review process follows internationally recognized ethical standards, including the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reviewers are expected to:

treat manuscripts as confidential documents
provide objective and constructive feedback
avoid personal criticism
disclose any conflicts of interest

9. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential. Information obtained during the review process must not be used for personal advantage or shared with third parties.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals must be submitted in writing, with a detailed justification. The editorial board will review the appeal in accordance with the journal’s policies.