Instructions for reviewers
An assessment of the reviewed paper is expected to consider both the scientific and formal aspects.
The primary objective of the reviewer's evaluation is to provide sufficient and unambiguous answers to the following questions and also recommendations for possible changes and improvements to the paper:
- does the title match the subject of the paper and does the subject of the paper correspond with the area of interest of the journal (according to "Aims and Scope"),
- is the Abstract correct, i.e. short but presenting the main results of the researches and conclusions based on these results,
- does the Introduction present the subject and the objective of the researches correctly,
- are the implemented methods used properly and is the research material sufficient,
- are the results described, analyzed, commented on and presented correctly, without repetitions of data in tables and diagrams,
- is the discussion presented correctly, based on actual knowledge and with the use of properly chosen scientific literature (as recent as possible),
- do the conclusions generalize the obtained results and provide recommendations, which are appropriately prepared on the basis of results and are not merely the repetition of those results,
- does the paper introduce new and interesting information and does it have sufficient impact and add to the knowledge base.
In regard to review papers, the most important information required is the judgment, whether the paper is based on adquate and recent scientific literature and discusses the area, which is essential to our Journal.
The formal evaluation of the paper should include answers to the following questions:
- whether the layout and contents of tables, graphs and diagrams is readable and convenient for recipients,
- is the information in tables not repeated in diagrams and vice versa,
- are there no reservations about the length of the paper, its linguistic correctness, the method of citation of the literature and usage of units, etc.?
When making a final recommendation, it should be clearly stated whether the paper is suitable for publication in journal. In the case of a positive answer, please indicate whether:
- it might be accepted without changes,
- it might be accepted after minor changes, suggested by the reviewer in the manuscript or in his/her opinion,
- it might be accepted after major changes (please indicate them).
The detailed evaluation criteria are outlined in the Paper Reviewer Forms (see Paper Evaluation Form and Paper Evaluation Form Quantitative Methods).
Every year a list of Reviewers collaborating with the Editors of the EBR is shown in the last (fourth) issue of the quarterly publication and on the website when all four issues of the journal have been sent to print.