The reviewer ensures confidentiality during the peer-review process and remains objective when reviewing articles. The reviewer determines whether references for all of the used sources have been provided in the article. If the reviewer is not sure of his/her competence in reviewing the particular article or finds himself/herself in a conflict of interest, he or she informs the editor so that another reviewer can be appointed.

Principles and requirements

  • Reviewers must certify the absence of any conflict of interest and evaluate manuscripts solely for their intellectual content.
  • Reviewers must keep information pertaining to the manuscript confidential.
  • Reviewers must bring to the attention of the editor-in-chief any information that may provide grounds for rejecting publication of a manuscript.
  • If the reviewer feels that it is not possible to complete the review process, he/she must inform the editor-in-chief immediately to enable assigning another reviewer.

The articles are submitted to the journal’s editor-in-chief to assess whether the article meets all the formal requirements (these are described in detail on our website). The editor selects two peers to conduct a double-blind review, if necessary, in consultation with the members of the editorial board. Two main criteria are strictly taken into account in the selection of reviewers. First of all, the reviewer must not have any conflict of interest with regard to the author of the article, which means that they must not represent the same institution. Secondly, the reviewer must be an expert of the respective field and hold a doctoral degree. The editor-in-chief seeks the corresponding reviewers not only among local but also foreign researchers.  

Since the journal publishes articles about the Baltic region, it is often possible to attract Lithuanian and Estonian researchers who have a passive knowledge of the Latvian language. If the article is published in English, then the peer for a blind review is primarily sought abroad amongst the best specialists in the field. The invited reviewers have no knowledge of who the author of the articles is, and vice versa. The editor-in-chief is the intermediary in communication between authors and reviewers within the anonymous peer-review process.  

If the reviewer agrees to review the article, he / she receives the article, as well as the reviewer's form with standardised questions with structured response alternatives (yes / no answers), as well as a space for his / her written evaluation in a free form where he / she can indicate all the positive and negative aspects of the article, as well as to provide the final assessment of whether the article is recommended for publication or not, and to note whether the article requires minor or major additions / corrections. On average, one month is given for preparation of a review. Subsequently, the author is also given about a month to improve the article. Depending on the circumstances, it is also possible to permit a longer time for improvement of the article. If necessary, the revised version of the article is coordinated with the reviewers. The decision regarding this is made on a case-by-case basis by the editor-in-chief. At all stages of article assessment, the editor can consult the editorial board to arrive at decisions.