Peer Review Process

Articles submitted for publication in “Chronos” must be original and must not have been previously published or submitted elsewhere. Upon submission, the editorial board evaluates the material and decides whether to accept or reject it for review. If accepted, the article undergoes a peer review process, adhering to the principle of mutual anonymity; neither the author nor the reviewer may belong to the same scientific institution. The review period typically ranges from two to four months. The editor-in-chief serves as the intermediary between authors and reviewers throughout the process. Following a positive review, the article will proceed to publication.
When the review is positive and includes only minor, non-essential comments or recommendations, the author must provide the editorial board with reasoned written explanations within two weeks if he/she disagrees with the notes and recommendations. Alternatively, the author may submit a final version of the work, incorporating the feedback from the review. The author’s explanations will be reviewed by the working group appointed by the editorial board for the specific case.

In cases where a thorough revision of the work is requested (with substantial comments provided):
a) The author is entitled to present his/her arguments to the editorial board. These arguments are reviewed by a working group established by the editorial board, which prepares a corresponding conclusion. Based on this conclusion, the editorial board makes a final decision. If necessary, the article may be sent for additional review.
b) If desired, the author may submit a carefully revised version of the article, which will undergo the standard pre-review and peer-review procedures.

The following decisions may be made regarding the evaluation of the article:
a) The article may be published;
b) The article may be published after revisions;
c) The article cannot be published.

The final decision on publication of the article is made by the editorial board of the journal. Any decision will be communicated to the author.

Only original scientific papers accepted by the journal are subject to review.

The criteria for evaluating materials submitted to “Chronos” include scientific novelty and significance; methodological justification; relevance of the presented factual material and argumentation of the conclusions; proper integration of primary sources and scientific literature (including recent studies); completeness of the bibliography, adherence to citation standards and footnotes; style of the article; compatibility of illustrations with the content; and the comprehensive presentation of the material in the summary.