Peer Review Policy

1. Introduction

Manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below. PP uses double-blind review, where both the reviewers and the author remain anonymous throughout the process. The peer review process respects the originality and personal opinions of the authors, but reserves the editors’ right to demand changes, based on reviewers' comments in order to preserve high scientific quality and our readers' interest.

2. Profile of the reviewers

Reviewers are external/independent in relation to the publisher’s institution; they are selected and invited to review a paper according to their expertise. The editors commit themselves to provide an unbiased peer reviewing process, by ensuring for each article that the reviewers and the author(s) are mutually independent, i.e. not affiliated with the same institution. The PP reviewers’ database is permanently being updated.

Reviewers should meet the following criteria:

- Hold no conflicts of interest with any of the authors;

- Should not come from the same institution as the authors;

- Should not have published together with the authors in the last year;

- Have relevant experience or have a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper;

- Hold an official and recognized academic affiliation.

The invited reviewers are asked to:

- accept or decline any invitations as soon as possible (based on the manuscript title and abstract);

- suggest alternative reviewers if an invitation must be declined;

- request a deadline extension as soon as possible in case more time is required to provide a comprehensive report.

Our reviewers are obliged to act accordingly to our Ethics Policy ( and are encouraged to read and observe the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers ( in their conduct.

The structure, evaluation criteria and types of decisions for the review reports are detailed in the Review Report Template.


Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.

If any aspect of the manuscript evaluation received assistance from an AI tool, we request that peer reviewers openly disclose the utilization of such tools within their peer review reports.

Contribution to editorial decision

Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.


Reviewers should complete their reviews within a specified timeframe. Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

3. Collaboration with the authors

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to the editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given (see more details in the next section).

Authors of manuscripts rejected are normally being informed in 2-4 weeks from receipt. Usually, the manuscript will be reviewed within 1 to 4 months from submission date and will be published in the next issue of the journal.

4. Stages of the review process

The review process consists in three stages:

4.1. Pre-review (editorial office)

On submission, a manuscript is reviewed to ensure that it meets the minimum requirements of the journal before it is sent to external reviewers. At this stage, the manuscript is reviewed for the following

- Possible plagiarism. The manuscript is evaluated to compare the level of similarity with other published works. Authors are provided with the similarity report together with the decision to reject the manuscript.

- Scope: After a manuscript has undergone similarity check and the level of similarity is judged to be appropriate, the content of the manuscript is checked to ensure that it fits within the scope of the journal selected by the author(s).

- Recent references: PP encourage authors to cite more recent articles. Preferably, considerable number of the cited articles should be works that were published within the last five years.

- English Language: PP currently publishes full text of articles only in the English language.

- Manuscripts are checked for the structure, organization, correctness and clarity of the language as it adheres to the journal's guidelines for Authors. The editorial office usually makes correction to minor grammatical errors in such a manner that it does not alter the manuscript. However, in situations where language is substantially difficult to comprehend, the manuscript is returned to the author to improve clarity of the language.

Academic editors can decide to continue with the peer review process, reject a manuscript, or request revisions before peer-review. Manuscripts that fail in this first stage of the review process are returned to the author(s) for modification and resubmission.

This first stage of the manuscript review is usually completed within two weeks.

4.2. Review (external)

If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is being sent for external double-blind evaluation.

Reviewers who accept a review invitation are provided one month to write their review via our OJS platform.

When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide their report within one week. Extensions can also be granted on request.

The decision is sent to the corresponding author, along with recommendations made by the Referees.

Types of decisions:

- Accept in the present form - the paper can be accepted without any further changes;

- Accept with minor correction from the author(s) - the paper can in principle be accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments; authors are given two weeks for minor revisions;

- Acceptance to be reconsidered after major revision from the author(s) - the author(s) need(s) to provide a point-by-point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript is normally provided. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within three weeks and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments. If the required revision time is estimated to be longer than three weeks, we will recommend that authors withdraw their manuscript before resubmitting so as to avoid unnecessary time pressure and to ensure that all manuscripts are sufficiently revised.

- Not suitable for further processing (rejection and declination of resubmission). Authors may appeal a rejection by sending an e-mail to the official address of the journal. The appeal must provide a detailed justification, including point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Editors' comments. Appeals can only be submitted following a “reject and decline resubmission” decision and should be submitted within two weeks from the decision date. Failure to meet these criteria will result in the appeal not being further considered. The case will be analysed and settled by the Editor-in-Chief. A reject decision at this stage is final and cannot be reversed.

Upon receipt of the reviewers’ comments, the editors review the comment. If the two reviewers’ comment have significantly different/or contradictory opinions about the same manuscripts, the manuscript is re-sent to a third reviewer. All reviewers’ comments (including the third reviewers’ comment where necessary) are thereafter sent to the author(s). The reviewers’ identities are concealed from the author(s).

The total time taken to complete the second stage of the manuscript review dependent on the availability of the reviewers. However, it is usually completed between one to three months.

4.3. Post-review (editors’ decision)

When requested, using the reviewers’ comments, author(s) make corrections to the manuscript and submits a revised manuscript. Upon receipt of the revised submission, the manuscript undergoes the third and final stage of the review process. The original manuscript, the revised manuscript and all the reviewers’ comments are sent to an editor of the journal. The editor reviews the manuscript and makes one the following decisions:

- Accepted as it is

- Accepted with minor correction

- Requires major corrections

- Send revised manuscript for review again

- Rejected

Manuscripts that are ‘accepted as it is’ are scheduled for publication. Manuscripts that require corrections (either minor or major) are sent to the author(s) to affect the corrections suggested by the editor. After effecting the corrections, the editor reviews the manuscripts again before the manuscripts are accepted for publication. In some cases, the editor may require authors to make corrections a second time. In other cases, the editor may request for the revised manuscripts with (or without) the additional corrections to be sent to a specific reviewer who had earlier reviewed the manuscript before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

In case of „accepted as it is”, „accepted with minor correction” or if the major corrections/revisions have been accepted by the reviewers, the manuscript is undergoing a final English proofreading process. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or by an academic editor. Accepted manuscripts are then copy-edited and English-edited internally. In the small number of cases where extensive editing or formatting is required, we ask the author(s) to use English editing services, or consult a native English-speaking colleague.

This stage usually takes one month.