The review process adheres to the standards of a double-blind peer review format. The editorial team make every effort to ensure the absence of any potential conflicts of interest. In cases where a reviewers identifies a potential conflict of interest, they are obliged to inform the editorial team. 

Each submission is evaluated by two esteemed experts in the field of art history, or similar disciplines (see the list of previous reviewers here).

The authors will be informed of the anticipated duration of the review process, which should not exceed eight weeks. In the event of delays, the authors will be duly informed of the reason for the delay. Furthermore, the authors have the option to withdraw the article.

The reviewer draws attention to the following issues, as specified in the review form:

• Substantive issues (field, methodology, interpretation, literature on the subject, sources)

• Formal issues (construction of the text, linguistic correctness, clarity of the argument, volume)

• Illustration issues (selection, location, captions)

• Any other remarks

The review concludes with one of the following decisions:

• To publish without any substantive changes
• To publish after minor changes
• To publish after significant changes
• Not to publish

Each decision should be based on a clear and well-reasoned justification. The final decision to publish/no to publish is made by the editorial team, unless the article has been negatively evaluated by two reviewers. The editorial team reserves the right to reject an article submitted after the deadline, even if it was previously approved for publication.

The review process does not include the following sections: “Reviews”, „Talks”, „Visual Turn”, „Inedita”, „Manifestos”.

For more see the „Ethics” section.