Gender, Equal Opportunities, Research is an anonymously peer-reviewed journal. The journal has been published since 2000, and since 2006 it has applied a peer-review procedure, which is essential to improving the quality of published articles and to the advancement of the sociology of gender and gender studies in the Czech Republic.

Review Procedure

Every article submitted for publication in Gender, Equal Opportunities, Research is sent to two reviewers, one external and one internal. Anonymity of the authors and the reviewers is ensured on both sides. The standard review period is 6 to 8 weeks. The journal is not responsible for delays caused by the reviewer.
The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to recommend that the author make language/style, formal, and content changes before the article is submitted for review. If the author refuses to make the proposed changes, the Editor-in-Chief can submit the article as is for review, but also reserves the right to reject the article without submitting it for review if it is felt that it falls short of the required standards of a scholarly text.
For the review of an article the Editor-in-Chief selects experts on the topic that the article deals with and ensures that there are no close working, institutional or personal ties between the author and the reviewer. Reviewers fill in a standardised form stating whether they recommend the article for publication, for revision, or for rejection. They justify their assessment in the review, where they can also make recommendations regarding possible changes to the text.
The final decision on whether to accept or reject the article for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief always after consultation with the journal’s Editorial Board. The decision to accept/revise/reject the article is made in observance of the following rules:
• If both reviews are favourable, the final decision to publish is made by the Editorial Board and the Editor-in-Chief.
• If both reviews are negative, the final decision to reject is made by the Editorial Board and the Editor-in-Chief.
• If both reviews recommend revisions, the author is asked to revise the text and it is then resubmitted for review either to the reviewer who expressed stronger reservations about publishing the text or to a third reviewer.
• If one review is favourable and the other negative, the author is asked to revise the text and it is then submitted to a third reviewer.
• If one review is favourable and the other recommends revisions, the author is asked to revise the text and it is then submitted for a new review to the reviewer who recommended the revisions.
• If one review is negative and the other recommends revisions, the Editor-in-Chief either proposes that the Editorial Board consider rejecting the article or asks the author to revise the article and the revised text is then submitted for review to a third reviewer. 


The review form is available for downloading