Terms of publishing and reviews

Hungarológiai Közlemények
(Papers of Hungarian Studies)
ISSN 0350 2430
UDC 821.511.141+811.511.141


Terms of publishing and reviews


The editorial board of the Hungarológiai Közlemények (Papers of Hungarian Studies) reviews the papers as part of a double-blind peer-review.

– The text can be published if it has received at least two anonymous positive reviews. The selection of reviewers is made from the prominent experts in the field, who will be invited by the editorial board. The editorial board guarantees that the author and the reviewers are not from the same institution. In the case of one positive and one negative review, the editorial board requires a third opinion.


Guidelines for reviewers


Please accept the reviewing or editing of the paper only once you have made sure that

  • the paper you have been asked to assess belongs to your area of expertise,
  • there is noconflict of interest, which would precludeyou from rendering a fair and impartial judgement of the paper.

Please give your assessment of the paper by filling in the form of the journal taking into consideration the following viewpoints:

  • Does the text comply with the requirements of the concept of the journal?
  • Is the research/elaboration of the topic well grounded or justifiable for science?
  • Is the abstract of the paper a concise summary of the topic and the methods used?
  • Are the keywords internationally known and accepted concepts?
  • Do the innovativeness of the paper, i.e.the choice of the topic, method of elaboration, interpretation of the results and conclusions meet the requirements of a scientific paper?
  • Is the elaboration based onanin-depthprocessofresearch?
  • Does the language of the paper meet the requirements of a scientific paper?
  • Has scientific literature been adequately used  (innovativeness, consequent use of concepts, international character,  journal references)?
  • Does the formal presentation of the paper meet the requirements?

Please give your statement also on

  • whether thepapercomplies with theethical requirements,
  • and whether the identity of the author of the paper is known to you.

Please evaluate the paper on a 1 to 10 scale, and state a clear opinion on whether you

  • recommend,
  • recommend with revision,
  • do not recommend

the paper for publication.

In the case that you recommend the paper for publication with revision or reject it,

you should explain your judgement.  Please submit your remarks, comments and suggestions (if any), in writing, up to 1000 characters (it can be more if justified).


Peer review is anonymous. Your name, work location details and job title are saved in the editorial office documentation. However, your opinion - without any indication of your name – will be sent to the paper’s author.