Response to reviews and improvement of the paper following reviews

The author receives from each reviewer a completed review questionnaire and potential comments marked in the text of the manuscript.

The author is required to respond comprehensively to all substantive objections and comments of the reviewer.

If the author disagrees with the reviewer, he/she must thoroughly substantiate his/her position.

The form of responses to reviews and improvements to the paper is optional. However, it must provide detailed information about which comments have been omitted and why, as well as what has been modified, where and how. A tabular layout is favoured:


Notes on the review questionnaire

Reviewer's note

Author's reply



Notes in the text

Section of the text to which the reviewer's comment relates

Reviewer's note

Author's reply

A revised version of the text






Method of author's corrections

Following the initial acceptance of the manuscript, the author receives two proofs – first for checking the manuscript's content, and the second to check the article's composition.

The manner and time limit for completion of proofreading depends on the number of necessary changes and is determined each time by the editor.

If the author does not return the second proofreading within the required deadline, the editors have the right to publish the article without the author's approval.

Responsibilities of the correspondence writer

The correspondence author is the author team's liaison with the editorial board. His/her responsibility is to:
Complete, maintain, and provide access to all documents required by the editorial team,
Communicate messages from the editorial office to all authors,
Supervise the timely fulfilment of authors' obligations,
Inform the editorial office of withdrawal of a paper and deal with related financial matters,
be available for contact with the editorial office throughout the publishing process,

Improve an article after publication

The author must inform the editorial secretary of significant errors in the published article.

Following the evaluation of the notification, the editorial board decides on the means of correction (errata, withdrawal of the paper with an appropriate clarification for the readers).


As a rule, all scientific papers in PJA are reviewed in a double-blind model (the editors do not reveal the names of the authors to the reviewers and the names of the reviewers to the authors). At least two reviewers evaluate each paper from outside the submitting institution. Specialists in the field are selected as reviewers, whose qualifications are confirmed by publications and participation in scientific projects. Their opinions are intended to support the decision-making process and assist authors in improving their work. The review questionnaire and how to make corrections are described on the journal's website (link to source). Annually, a list of reviewers of published papers from the yearbook is published on the website without tying the names to a particular article.

Method of peer-review implementation

The OJS electronic or tabular form is available on the journal's website (link to documents) to accomplish the review.

Any negative assessment in the individual points of the review must be carefully justified.
The review must end with a clear choice of one of the options:

   acceptance without corrections,

   minor amendments necessary,

   major rewriting necessary without re-review,

   major revision and re-review necessary,

   rejection of the work.

How any amendments are made to the text is arbitrary. However, it must allow for an unambiguous interpretation of the comments.

The review may be submitted to the editor via the OJS system or sent by e-mail or post to the address of the editorial secretary.

Review questionnaire (original work) (DOC)
Peer-review questionnaire (review work) (DOC)