Peer Review Guidelines
1. All manuscripts submitted to Philologia Classica are subject to the double blind peer-review process. We aim for a ten-week turnaround period for refereeing submissions.
2. Articles submitted to Philologia Classica will be assigned to the Editors, who will decide whether manuscripts are appropriate for the journal and meet the requirements (format, keywords and abstracts; references; contact information etc.). Should the article be rejected after initial assessment, a written notice will be sent to authors.
3. After submission, all materials must be forwarded to be evaluated and commented on by two experts in the same field of research including members of the Editorial Board, with preference given to external members. At least one of the referees must be external. The reviewer must notify the Editorial Board of possible conflicts of interest and refuse to serve as a referee.
4. The reviewer’s name is not disclosed to the author. The Editorial Board must protect the confidentiality of the review process with respect to all information involved with a manuscript. The referee is responsible for keeping undisclosed the reviewed work and its content. Discussion of a reviewed article with third parties is not allowed. Before publication, the referee is not permitted to use or refer to the material under consideration.
5. Reviewers will evaluate content of the article according to the following requirements:
1) scientific value and originality;
2) relation to recent publications and up-to-date research in the field;
3) compliance with the applicable standards of ethics (see Publishing ethics);
4) clear and unambiguous style of writing.
Referees may request changes and suggest improvements to the manuscript.
6. After review, the reviewer will make one of the following decisions:
1) publish as it is;
2) publish with minor changes (listed);
3) revise and resubmit (suggestions and corrections listed);
4) reject.
In case of the 1st or 4th decision, a written notice will be sent to authors.
In case of the 2nd or 3rd decision, authors will receive a list of specific concerns to prepare a revision, and if performed satisfactorily a revised version will then be accepted for publication.
The review consists of two parts, one of which is intended to be sent to author(s), while the other — to the Editorial Board.
7. A positive review report is in itself not sufficient for the article to be accepted for publication. The final decision on publication rests with the Editorial Board.
8. Originals of review reports are kept by the Editorial Board for a period of three years from the publication date or the date of the decision to reject a manuscript.
