Review Procedure

Review Procedure

Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review is an anonymously peer-reviewed journal. The editors consider the review procedure to be a key requirement in ensuring the quality of the journal and the procedure is set up to be as objective, quick, and practical as possible, in an effort to maintain high standards for published work.

The course of the review procedure:
Each paper submitted to SC/CSR is sent to two reviewers for review. Anonymity is maintained between the authors and the reviewers.

The Editor-in-Chief has the right to reject a submission prior to review if he feels that it does not fulfil the basic standards required for the publication of a professional text, or if it clearly lies outside the field of sociology and related social sciences. The Editor-in-Chief is required to justify his decision before the Editorial Board. Members of the Editorial Board have the right to request to see any manuscripts submitted for publication, including those rejected by the Editor-in-Chief prior to the review stage.
The Editor-in-Chief has the right to recommend linguistic, formal, and content modifications to the manuscript prior to its submission for review.

For the review of a monograph the Editor-in-Chief selects reviewers who specialise in the subject the monograph addresses. He also ensures that the author and reviewers have no close employment, institutional or personal connections. The reviewers fill in a standardised form indicating whether the article is recommended for publication, recommended for re-writing, or recommended for rejection. The reviewers substantiate their decisions in the review comments, where they may also make suggestions for modifications to the text.
On the basis of comments from reviewers the Editor-in-Chief communicates to the author whether the monograph has been accepted, requires re-writing, or has been rejected. In the case where the monograph requires re-writing or has been rejected, the most serious reasons for this decision are indicated. The final decision on the acceptance or rejection of a monograph is always made by the Editor-in-Chief after consultation with the Editorial Board. In the case where an author disagrees with the decisions of the Editor-in-Chief, the author must submit objections in writing to the Editor-in-Chief, who will then submit the letter to the Editorial Board.

In the decision-making process over the acceptance/re-writing/rejection of submissions, the Editor-in-Chief is guided by the following rules:
- If both reviews are positive, the final decision on acceptance is made by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board.
- If both reviews are negative, the final decision on rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board.
- If both reviewers recommend re-writing, the author is asked to re-write the text and the re-written text is then submitted for a new review to the reviewer that expressed more serious reservations or to a third reviewer.
- If one review is positive and the second negative, the author is asked to re-write the text and the re-written text is then submitted for review to a third reviewer.
- If one review is positive and the other review recommends re-writing, the author is asked to re-write the text and the monograph is then re-submitted for a new review to the reviewer that recommended re-writing.
- If one review is negative and the second recommends re-writing, the Editor-in-Chief either proposes rejection of the monograph to the Editorial Board, or asks the author to re-write the text, which is then submitted to a third reviewer.

If the opinions of the reviewers are not in agreement even after the re-written monograph has been reviewed, the Editor-in-Chief either appeals to a third reviewer (if this has not already occurred according to one of the situations above) or submits the monograph to the Editorial Board for a final decision.

Should the author feel that any or all of the recommendations from the reviewers are invalid, the author must submit objections in writing in a letter to the Editor-in-Chief, which is then submitted to the Editorial Board for a final decision.

Length of the review procedure
The standard length of time for the review procedure is eight weeks, beginning from the date on which the manuscript for review arrives at the Press and Publications Department (i.e. following any modifications made at the advice of the Editor-in-Chief). The Press and Publications Department makes every effort to ensure that the eight-week review period is observed, but bears no responsibility for delays caused by the reviewers.

Confirmation of acceptance for publication
The Press and Publications Department confirms acceptance of a manuscript for publication in SC/CSR only once the decision has been approved by the Editorial Board. The Press and Publications Department is not required to provide the author with confirmation of receipt of a submission.