Reviewing rules

Reviewing rules

Procedure for Reviewing Academic Articles Published in Didaskalia Theater Magazine


  1. Academic articles submitted to the editors require a preliminary assessment performed by the editors (i.e. the members of the Didaskalia board) who specialize in the issue raised in the article. After the preliminary assessment the articles can be accepted for review, rejected, or sent back to the author with suggestions for necessary corrections or supplements.
  2. The Didaskalia editorial team selects two reviewers for each academic text.
  3. Reviewers are selected based on the subject of the article in question. These are specialists in the field which the text concerns.
  4. The author or authors of the publication and the reviewers are unaware of each other's identities (the double-blind review process).
  5. Before submitting a text for review, the editors present the reviewer with the subject of the article, and after gaining his/her consent to write a review, a contract is signed with the reviewer to establish a high standard of dependability and meticulousness of the reviewers and a deadline for submitting the review.
  6. The editorial board exerts no pressure on the reviewer, makes no attempt to influence his/her evaluation of the academic text, neither during the signing of the contract, nor during the editing of the review.
  7. After gathering all the reviews of an academic text the editorial board decides on whether or not to accept a text for print on the basis of the submitted opinions.
  8. If the author of a reviewed academic text is part of the editorial board, he/she takes no part in selecting reviewers and deciding whether or not the text should be accepted for publication.
  9. If the diversity of opinions presented in the reviews prevent the board from coming to a decision, or if the text is by nature interdisciplinary and raises controversy amid the group of specialists, the board may call in an added reviewer.
  10. The reviewer has the right to suggest making specified corrections to a text. In such a case the editorial board will ask the author to make them. The corrected text can then be resubmitted to the same reviewer.
  11. After the conclusion of the review process the author of the text and the other reviewers may request to see the reviews.
  12. The author of the review is entitled to submit his/her name only to the decision-making body.
  13. Once a year, for the final issue in a given theatrical season, the editors submit a list of reviewers collaborating with Didaskalia to the public.


  1. The specialist who receives a proposal to prepare a review is obliged to carefully evaluate his/her competence and practical capacity to write a review in the set time, and, should doubts arise, to decline the offer.
  2. The reviewers decide upon qualifying the text for print, taking into consideration, for instance, the innovative treatment of the theme, the most recent literature on the topic, applying appropriate methodology and drawing conclusions on the state of research. The reviewer's duties include evaluating the independence of the work under evaluation, with attention to establishing whether it borrows from (without references) or plagiarizes other works.
  3. Every review is to be made in written form and must conclude with an unambiguous judgment on whether the article should be accepted or rejected for publication. The reviewer does, however, have the right to give a conditionally positive review, or to insist that relevant corrections be introduced to the work. In such a case, he/she has the right to verify the reviewed work after the corrections are made.
  4. The review should be prepared to deadline and with discretion, without consulting the other reviewers or sharing with them information concerning the reviewer's opinions or intentions.