The procedures and principles of reviewing adopted by “Studia Oecumenica” are consistent with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics - COPE, the Ministry of Science and Higher Education as presented in the document "Good practices in review procedures in science" and with the Principles of publication ethics.

1. Original scientific and research articles (published in the Articles/Articles section) are assessed by two external reviewers.

2. Reviewers are selected by members of the Editorial Board, taking into account the scope and degree of the reviewer's competences, corresponding to the subject of the article, as well as the criterion of reviewer reliability.

3. The editors are guided by the principle of avoiding conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers. A conflict of interest includes direct personal relationships (in particular marriage and/ kinship), relationships of professional subordination and/or direct scientific cooperation. If the reviewer assumes to know who the author of the text may be and considers that there is a conflict of interest, they are obliged to report this fact to the Editorial Board. The editors resolve doubts and take appropriate actions.

4. Articles sent to external reviewers are anonymized (devoid of information about the author/authors), which means that the reviewer is not notified about who the author of the text is. In turn, data about the Reviewer is removed from the version of the review form, which is sent to the Author/Authors. In this way, the "double-blind review" procedure, i.e. double anonymity, is maintained.

5. The reviewer receives an inquiry from the editorial office whether - based on the attached title and abstract – they will undertake to prepare a review of the article within a specified deadline. If they agree, they receive the entire text and a review form.

6. If the Reviewer, after reading the entire article, decides that they are not competent enough to evaluate it or suspects a conflict of interests, they may refrain from reviewing it and inform the Editorial Board about it.

7. The reviewer performs the evaluation in a reliable, confidential manner and in accordance with the principles of ethical reviewing in science. The review process takes into account, in particular, the following criteria:

• the originality and scholarly character of the submitted manuscript;
• its consistency with the thematic profile of the journal;
• the manner in which the research objectives are pursued and the clarity with which the research problem is presented;
• the appropriate use of relevant literature;
• the proper substantiation of claims and conclusions.

8. Before publishing the article, reviewers are not allowed to use the research results presented in the article or disclose their assessments to third parties. This also applies to articles that the reviewer did not undertake to evaluate.

9. Reviewers evaluate the text and express their opinion according to the Form developed for “Studia Oecumenica”. Both negative and positive assessments must be justified. Reviewers can also enter comments on the manuscript (in the electronic review mode), while ensuring that their identity is not disclosed.

10. The publication of the article in the annual depends on the reviewers' recommendations. The reviewer may suggest:

• acceptance of the text in the submitted form, without corrections,
• possibility of publication without changes, but due to the lack of original contribution, the question arises whether to publish the text,
• acceptance of the text for printing after making corrections, without repeated review,
• acceptance of the text for printing after corrections and reassessment by the reviewer,
• text not accepted for printing.

11. In the situation referred to in point 9, the editorial board makes the final decision on publication. In case c. of point 9, the Editorial Board sends the Author the anonymous comments of the Reviewers, and the Author sends the Editorial Board the text corrected in accordance with the Reviewers' recommendations or an explanation of the Reviewers' comments with which they do not agree. In the situation d. in point 9, the Editorial Board sends the Reviewer's (anonymized) comments to the Author, requiring them to make the suggested changes and/or respond to the review. The new version of the text (if the Author decides to use it) will be sent to the reviewers for reassessment. This process may repeat until a final decision is made that the text is ready or ineligible for publication.

12. The text is forwarded to the next publishing stage by the editorial board provided that the reviewers make two clearly expressed positive conclusions that the text is suitable for printing in the submitted form. In the event of divergent opinions of the reviewers, the editorial board of “Studia Oecumenica” sends the text to a third external reviewer to seek his opinion. The final decision on qualifying the text for printing rests with the Editorial Board.

13. The content of the review and the editorial team's opinions about the articles participating in the publication process are not disclosed to persons outside the editorial board.

14. The general list of reviewers' names is published on the journal's website. The names of reviewers for individual issues of the journal are published in the footer of each printed issue of the annual, without assigning names to individual articles.