Instructions for reviewers

Reviewers are obliged to provide professional, reasoned, impartial and submit to the editor an assessment of the scientific value of the manuscript by the deadlines. The reviewers evaluate the papers in relation to the compatibility of the paper’s topic with the journal’s profile, the relevance of the researched area and applied methods, the originality and scientific relevance of the data presented in the manuscript, the style of the academic presentation and the text’s scientific apparatus.

A reviewer who has well-founded suspicions or knowledge of a violation of ethical standards by on the part of the author, he is obliged to inform the editor about it. The reviewer should identify important published works that the authors did not cite. He should also warn the editor about important similarities and coincidences between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work or manuscript that is under review in another journal, if he has personal knowledge about it. If he has knowledge that the same manuscript is being considered in several journals at the same time, the reviewer is obliged to inform the editor.

The reviewer must not have a conflict of interest with the authors or funder research. If there is a conflict of interest, the reviewer is obliged to inform the editor immediately.

Reviewer who considers himself/herself incompetent in the subject or area covered by the manuscript bava is obliged to inform the editor about it.

The review must be objective. Comments concerning the personality of the author are considered inappropriate. The judgment of reviewers must be clear and supported by arguments.

Manuscripts sent to a reviewer are considered confidential documents. Reviewers may not use unpublished material from submitted manuscripts for their own research without the express written permission of the authors, and information and ideas expressed in submitted manuscripts must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Review process

​​Received papers are subject to review. Each paper is reviewed by one reviewer. The goal of the review is to help the editor in making a decision on whether the work should be accepted or rejected and to improve the quality of the manuscript through the process of communication with the authors.

The review is mutually anonymous: the identity of the author is unknown to the reviewers and vice versa . The deadline for reviewing is 30 days from the receipt of the work.

The choice of reviewers is at the discretion of the editor-in-chief. Reviewers must have relevant knowledge related to the field of the manuscript and must not be from the same institution as the author, nor must they be authors who have recently published publications together (as co-authors) with any of the authors of the submitted work.< /span>

The editor-in-chief sends the submitted work to reviewers, experts in scientific the field the work deals with. The review form also contains questions to be answered, which indicate to the reviewers which aspects should be included in order to make a decision on the fate of the manuscript. In the final part of the form, the reviewers must state their observations and suggestions on how to improve the submitted manuscript.

Идентитет рецензената остаје непознат ауторима пре, током и након поступка рецензије.

You can see the review form HERE

You can see the list of reviewers HERE