Publication rules and peer review process

The peer review process is strictly anonymous, as we use a double-blind peer review process.
Each article submitted to the section “Studies and Essays” and “Materials” is peer reviewed by two anonymous reviewers. Each reviewer must declare any conflicts of interest that they might have with the authors of the submitted article (for example, working at the same institute, etc.)
The peer review should recapitulate in brief the main content and thesis of the submitted text and evaluate its contribution to the field both in theoretical and empirical terms. Formal qualities such as clarity of the argument and style should be also addressed. The peer review should also mention and comment on the major weaknesses, errors and uncertainties and it should also give recommendations for improving the submitted text. The reviewer should also explicitly express in a statement, if a submitted text should be: a) accepted for publication without corrections or with minor revisions; b) returned to the author for major corrections; or c) rejected.
Peer reviewers should submit their review statements via the online submission system.
The peer review statements are sent anonymously to the authors with the comments and recommendations of the Editorial Board. The authors will be informed of the results of the peer review process immediately after its conclusion.
The peer reviewers are remunerated (1,500 CZK/review statement). In the case the reviewed text is published in Soudobé dějiny/Czech Journal Contemporary History, the peer reviewers are entitled to one copy of the issue (which can be sent to them by post or they can pick it up at the editorial office of the journal).
In case the manuscript fails to fulfil the basic requirements of a scholarly article or it is clearly out of the scope or profile of Soudobé dějiny/Czech Journal Contemporary History, the Editorial Board reserve the right to return the submitted text to the author, with an explanation for the rejection.