Peer-review Process

  • Articles are qualified for publication on the basis of a peer review process.
  • Articles are reviewed by at least two reviewers who are experts in the subject matter covered by the article and are not part of the journal’s editorial staff.
  • The review process is conducted according to a "double-blind" principle-neither the reviewer nor the author are aware of each other's identity.
  • The review process ensures that reviewers are independent of the authors, i.e. not affiliated with the same institution.
  • In the event of discrepancies in the evaluation of an article by two reviewers, the article is referred to a third reviewer for a conclusive review.
  • Reviews are in writing and contain a clear conclusion as to whether or not the article can be accepted for publication.
  • Articles are reviewed in accordance with uniform evaluation criteria adopted by the Editorial Board and set out in an article evaluation form.
  • Articles are evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:
    - suitability for a magazine of this type,
    - original content,
    - contribution of new insight into the subject of research,
    - factual accuracy.
  • Reviews form the basis of the Editorial Board's final decision on whether or not an article will be accepted for publication; on each occasion, such a decision is made after a discussion.
  • Editorial Board decisions end with one of the following conclusions:
    - The article is academically irreproachable and qualifies for publication.
    - The article requires some (minor) corrections and will qualify for publication once these are made.
    - The article requires significant (major) corrections and needs to be re-reviewed once these are made and before it can be qualified for publication.
    - The article does not qualify for publication.
  • If reservations are expressed with regard to an article, its authors are expected to take these into account in a new version of the article.
  • If the authors are unable to take the reservations into account, they should make a case in writing, explaining why.
  • If major reservations are expressed with regard to an article, the new version of the article will be re-reviewed by one of the reviewers who evaluated the original article.

The journal is archived in
Open Access policy listed in
Email alerts
Sign up
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top