Tento web používá soubory cookies. Dalším procházením webu vyjadřujete souhlas s naším používáním souborů cookies. Více informacíSouhlasím

There are four possibilities:

1) If an article is rejected, its authors are informed and the peer reviews are sent to them, with the agreement of the reviewers.

2) Where a reviewer recommends amendments, the article is returned to the author for revision. When the author re-submits the revised article, the changes are checked. Minor corrections are done by editors, in the case of more extensive revisions, the article is sent to the reviewers again. This process may be repeated several times depending on the results of the assessments by the editors and reviewers.

3) If an article requires only technical revisions without any amendments to the actual text, the revisions are made and the peer-review process is not repeated. However, authors are asked to make the required adjustments.

4) If the article is deemed appropriate by reviewers without any revisions, the authors are informed and the article text is considered final. Proofs are sent to authors for corrections.

The authors do not know the reviewers’ names and the reviewers do not know the names of the authors. All communication is carried out through the editor in charge of the article and is confidential. Reviews are not binding for editors; however, editors must always carefully consider whether an article is to be published even without all three approving reviews. For the majority of articles, approval by all three reviewers is required. The editorial board reserves the right to reject an article despite approving reviews, if the article does not meet the requirements of the Ortodoncie journal (covering such issues as the subject matter, non-transparent research funding, unacknowledged circumstances discovered only during the peer review process, etc.).


© Česká ortodontická společnost 2021