Summaries of full-length articles intended for the peer-reviewed sections (expected length 15 – 25 normal pages /normal page = 1 800 characters including spaces/), proposals for interviews, articles, polemics, reports and other writing (for the section of film and film literature reflections) could be sent to:

Martin Kaňuch ( or Michal Michalovič (

The papers intended for the section Studium should be followed by a short information about the author (3 – 5 lines) and an abstract in English or Slovak language (maximum half a normal page).

Peer-review process

▪ The peer-review process takes place under the supervision of the journal’s editorial board, the actual members of which will be mentioned in each issue of the journal.
▪ Before the peer-review process for the submitted paper commences, the editor-in-chief can request particular scientific or stylistic modifications from the author, or he can decide to not put it under peer-review – the reason being namely failing the basic criteria of original scientific work. In this case the editor-in-chief gives a clear written statement.
▪ Each preliminary accepted paper is peer-reviewed by two peer-reviewers. These are chosen based on their expert competence in the field. Experts who are not in close working or personal relationship with the author are chosen.
▪ Kino-Ikon follows the double-blind peer-review process (the authors and the peer-reviewers remain unknown to each other).
▪ The submitted manuscript should therefore consist from 2 main parts: 1) title page with author’s data, 2) body of the manuscript (without author’s data). On the title page of the manuscript following data should be given: author’s name, affiliation and contact (including phone number and e-mail address). In case that the author quotes his previous work in the manuscript, he should address these impersonally (using formulations such as “As the researchers / historians have shown...” and he doesn’t identify those in the literature listings (“anonym, 2007”). In this phase, information about financing the research and acknowledges should be omitted, too. Name of the author can’t be identifiable neither via the metadata of the file passed to the peer-reviewer.
▪ Aspects of novelty and originality of the research are being considered in the peer-review process, as well as the aptitude and quality of explanation and description of the used methodological tools and the possibility to verify the results of the research (by repeating the individual steps of the research).
▪ Peer-reviews prepare the peer-review evaluation sheet, in which they mention, whether they propose to accept the manuscript, to modify it or to decline its publishing. They argue in favour of their statement according to the guidelines for the peer-review evaluation sheets.
▪ If the peer-reviewer proposes to decline or to modify the manuscript, he mentions the main reasons for this. In the case of the proposal to modify the manuscript or if two conflicting reviews appear, the editorial staff can demand a third review to be done.
▪ Based on the reviews the editor-in-chief makes the final decision about the inclusion of the manuscript (or its declining) and he lets the author know about this in the shortest time frame.
▪ If the author doesn’t agree with the editor-in-chief’s decision, he can send the editorial staff members his written statement. Consequently, this is being evaluated  by the editorial board. In this case the scientific level of the manuscript.

Ethical Guidelines (Authors)

1. All authors must warrant that their article presents the results of their own original research and is the product of their own original scientific work.
2. The article cannot plagiarize any previously published scientific work.
3. All the persons that have substantially contributed to the submitted manuscript should be named as co-authors. All the co-authors have to agree with the submitting of the manuscript.
4. All the co-authors are equally reliable for the content of the submitted manuscript or published article.
5. A moderately modified or enhanced version of a previously published article cannot be submitted.
6. All the relevant sources and literature has to be cited appropriately within the submitted manuscript. Information gathered through private interviews and/or correspondences with third parties has to be cited appropriately, too.
7. Any defamatory statements which could infringe with any person’s reputation have to be avoided in submitted manuscripts.
8. Any potential conflict of interests on the side of any of the co-authors of the submitted manuscript has to be clearly declared.
9. In case that the submitted manuscript originated as a part of a research financed (at least partially) by a grant schema of any kind or by support programmes, all the information on this financing has to be declared in the submitted manuscript.

Ethical Guidelines (Journal Editor-in-chief)
1. Editor-in-chief has the right to reject the submitted manuscript without subjecting it to the peer review process if he or she considers it inappropriate for the journal.
2. Editor-in-chief has to ensure that the peer review process is confidential.
3. If the submitted manuscript is being suspected from being based on a previously published work, editor-in-chief has the right to exclude it from the peer review process and to reject the submitted manuscript.
4. Editor-in-chief should ensure that the manuscripts are being processed effectively and timely without any unnecessary delays.
5. If sufficient and convincing evidence is presented to the editor-in-chief that some parts of an article published in the journal are erroneus, he or she should ensure that an appropriate erratum is published.