All articles published in the journal Science & Military are reviewed in an anonymous reviewing procedure (double-blind peer review). The review process is anonymous, carried out by at least two independent reviewers selected from the range of experts recommended by the Editorial board, where none of the reviewers are members of the same department as the author or any of the co-authors, or are in any way in the conflict of interest regarding the peer-reviewed article. On the reviewers decides the Editor in chief. As long as their opinions substantially differ, the Editor in chief determines a third reviewer. The authors of the article and the reviewers remain in a mutually anonymous relationship.
The reviewer is obliged to become familiar with the Ethical standards of the journal Science & Military, with the Guidelines for authors, with the Review form and with the GDPR. The reviewer shall write the review opinion in the required form and deliver it within the deadline by e-mail (scan signed by the reviewer) to the the editorial office. The reviewer shall critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the contribution in all required fields. In the conclusion of the review opinion, the reviewer shall assess the presented text as a whole and indicate whether it is recommended for publishing, or recommended for publishing after revision (no further review is necessary), or recomended for publishing after revision and further review, or it should not be published (rejected).
The result of the double-blind peer reviewed process is binding for the author of the contribution, who is required to implement the comments from reviewers. Results of the reviews procedure form the basis for editorial board's office decision-making about the publication / non-publication of the reviewed manuscript
The Editorial board archives the reviews form at least ten years.