Peer-review procedure

The texts accepted by the editors of the Journal of Ethnology, which are expected to be published, are submitted to two reviewers to be commented on (except for news, personal data or texts of some additional columns). The reviews are done anonymously (the reviewers do not know the authors and vice-versa). An editor of the Journal can recommend the author to modify the text (as regards form or content) even before it is submitted to the reviewers.

The editors choose the reviewers according to their branch suitable for the review of the given theme of the text. They take account of the fact that the reviewers are not connected with the author as regards personal contacts, work or institution. The members of the Journal of Ethnologys editorial board are not reviewers, either. The reviewers work with a standardized form in which they mention if they recommend the text to be accepted or revised, or if they reject it. They explain their decision in a statement whose part is available for the author anonymously. The editorial board is the final body that decides on publishing or non-publishing of a text; the editorial board is to comment on the author’s possible disagreement with the statement.

The following rules have been stated for the review procedure:
If both statements recommend the text to be revised, the text revised by the author is then submitted to the reviewer who had the greatest reservations, or to a third reviewer. The same is applied if one statement is positive and the other one requires the revision. If one statement is positive and the other one negative, the revised text is submitted to a third reviewer. The same is applied if one statement is negative and the other one recommends the revision (however, here the editors can suggest the editorial board to reject the article). If the reviewers´ statements are not identical even after the repeated reviews of the revised texts, a third reviewer can be addressed, or the final statement is issued by the editorial board.