The peer review procedure is an essential part of the publishing process that contributes to maintaining a high research quality of the published papers.
All of the manuscripts that meet the Author’s Guidelines requirements go through double blind peer review procedure by independent reviewers.
The Editorial Board selects the reviewers based on their professional experience and expertise.
have a PhD;
indicate official affiliation (university, research institute, RPO)
provide a researcher’s digital identifier (ORCID ID or Researcher ID, Scopus ID, RISC number) with a complete profile, incl. publication activities and expertise.
the reviewers agree to perform an objective, timely and transparent evaluation of the manuscript, strictly following the standards, flowcharts and guidelines by COPE, the Author’s Guidelines and the Publishing Ethics.
by accepting a manuscript the reviewer undertakes to observe the anonymity of procedure, not to distribute or reproduce in any form the manuscript submitted for a review.
to timely declare any potential conflict of interest or competing interest.
to immediately notify the Editorial Board and the Editor-in-Chief if the reviewer finds a conflict of interest that was not present or determinable at the time of the peer-review procedure started and can potentially affect the objective evaluation of the manuscript.
to notify in timely manner the Editorial Board or the Editor-in-Chief in case the peer-review procedure cannot be completed within the pre-set deadline.
Reviewers are not expected to assess the manuscript for grammatical mistakes, but to focus on quality, scientific contribution and overall style of the research.
(1) Upon agreeing to review a manuscript, the reviewer agrees to send the completed review within the time-frame set by the Editor/Editorial Boards Member.
(2) The reviewers receive the manuscript prepared for double-blind peer review procedure and a review form.
(3) After the review’s completion the peer reviewer sends the completed review form to the following email: [email protected]
(4) The review is considered accepted when the reviewer receives an email from the Editor verifying the review was done – “review receipts”.
Our editorial team firmly believes that the peer reviewing activities are essential part and one of the most important processes in publishing.
- COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers:
https://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf
- Web of Science Academy: An Introduction to Peer Review:
https://webofscienceacademy.clarivate.com/learn
- Elsevier Researcher Academy – Peer Review Course:
https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/certified-peer-reviewer-course
Introduction
Is the research question clearly presented?
Is the available context in which the research question is posed presented?
Are there significant gaps in the introduction of the problem?
Methodology
Are the research methods clearly stated?
Does the stated research methodology match the content?
Results
Are the results of the study clearly stated?
Does the presented data correspond to the results?
Discussion and conclusions
Is the conclusion supported by the results obtained?
Are potential limitations of the study described?
Literature
Does the literature match the content of the study?
Are the key studies in the field indicated?
Is the literature formatted according to the standard adopted by the publication (BDS ISO 690-2021)?
Title, abstract and keywords
Do the title, abstract, and keywords match the content?
Does the abstract contain the purpose of the study and the most important methodological details?
Are details given in the summary that are not presented in the main text?
Are the selected keywords appropriate?
General conclusion
What does the present study contribute to the field?
