1. The “Studia Periegetica” journal uses a double-blind peer review process (double anonymised), which means that the reviewer's identity is not made visible to the author, and the author's identity is not made visible to the reviewer. The reviewer's and author's identities are visible to the decision-making editor.

2. The article submitted for publication is initially assessed by the editor-in-chief of “Studia Periegetica” to determine if it fits the journal’s profile.

3. After this preliminary acceptance, the article is reviewed by at least two independent, external reviewers not affiliated with the author’s institution. The editor may, but does not have to, use reviewers suggested by the authors. All supplementary material is subjected to peer review.

4. The reviewers review the article and provide the editor with comments, suggestions and a recommendation: 

1. Accept without corrections.
2. Accept after minor improvements.
3. Accept after major improvements.
4. Reject.

5. The editor reads the reviews and sends them to the author(s) (along with any additional tips). After receiving the review, the authors decide whether to make corrections and resubmit the article if necessary. The author(s) formulate responses to all comments and suggestions of reviewers and editors.

6. The editor decides whether he accepts the article and sends it for proofreading and publication, or sends it back for further reviews and corrections.

7. In addition to suggestions from the reviewers, the author may receive additional suggestions from:

• the editor-in-chief,
• the proofreader – in matters concerning the use of language,
• the technical editor – in matters concerning text editing,
• the statistical editor – if the article contains any statistics.

8. The final decision about whether to publish the article or not is made by the editor-in-chief in agreement with the managing editor after analysing the entire editorial process.