Review guidelines

The Peer Review

The paper is accepted for publication by the decision of the Editorial Board after checking the authenticity of the content using the tool Turnitin, assessing whether the topic corresponds to the concept of the journal and the review process based on two anonymous positive reviews and in accordance with the Regulations on the publishing activities of the University of Osijek and the University of Zadar and according to the instructions of the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, taking into account the standards of objectivity, anonymity and confidentiality of data. The categorization of papers is carried out according to the valid Instructions for editing and formatting the journals of the Ministry of Science and Education of the Republic of Croatia.

By accepting the review assignment, the reviewer acknowledges that there is no conflict of interest between the review and other professional or personal roles.

The selection of reviewers is based on their expertise in the field of manuscript topics. The final selection of reviewers is decided by the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board makes the final decision on accepting/not accepting the paper based on reviews and decides on the final categorization of the paper. The condition for accepting manuscripts for publication is two positive reviews. In some cases, if one of the reviews is positive and the other negative, the Editorial Board might seek the opinion of a third reviewer. The Editorial Board also makes the final decision on the categorization of the article based on the reviewers’ suggestions. Except for e-mail communication with reviewers (submission of the manuscript and the review form, applying the standards of confidentiality and protection of personal data), the Editorial Board is not involved in the process of reviewing the manuscript. 

Instructions to reviewers

Before accepting a review assignment, consider whether the article is within your areas of scientific work and check for conflicts of interest. By accepting the review, the reviewer confirms that there is no conflict of interest between the review and the other professional or personal roles. If selected reviewers are unable to evaluate the paper or they feel they are not qualified to review a manuscript, they are obliged to inform the editor-in-chief as soon as possible. After that, members of the Editorial board suggest another reviewer.

Reviewers enter their evaluation of the manuscript and suggest its categorization in the received review form. Peer review should be objective and scientifically based. Reviewers critically and constructively evaluate the received manuscript and make their own clear and constructive views, suggestions, and comments. Reviewers are obliged to warn about relevant published works that authors failed to cite and to draw the attention of the editor-in-chief to possible cases of plagiarism, copyright infringement, or other unacceptable actions. 

Reviewers should send the review to the journal within three weeks of receiving the manuscript. If they are unable to accept the review of the proposed work, the reviewers are obliged to inform the Editorial Board within one week of receiving the review request.

The review process is double-anonymous (blind), and the reviewers communicate with the authors through the Editorial Board. Reviewers must ensure the anonymity of the review process (e.g. remove personal data from the document, so that their identity is not revealed in the comments of the reviewed text).

If the reviewers, after inspecting the manuscript, estimate that the manuscript needs to be updated, they should make suggestions for changes and/or additions. Reviewers' comments are sent to the authors for corrections. After corrections have been made by the authors, the reviewer can request that the revised manuscript be sent to him for approval of revisions. In this case, the reviewer should review the revised work within one week of receiving the manuscript. If the reviewer does not send feedback to the editors it will be considered that the reviewer is satisfied with the corrections made.

If the reviewers think that the paper is not of sufficient quality for publication, they should argue their opinion.

The manuscript can be returned to the authors for revision a maximum of two times. If the author did not adopt some of the reviewer's comments, this should be explained with arguments in a separate document called "Letter to the reviewer". In the final version of the manuscript corrected after the reviewers' comments, the authors MUST highlight (in colour) the parts of the text that were added during the corrections.

A detailed description of ethical expectations from reviewers is available at Publication ethics and malpractice statement. 

Guidelines for Article Categorization

Original Scientific Paper

An article whose scientific contribution may be of research and/or of a theoretical nature. The first contains unpublished results of original scientific research in its entirety or includes the methodological, analytical, and interpretive level of the text and scientific argumentation and credibility. The second contains systematic critical reviews and meta-analyses whose originality of contribution is determined by the focus, coverage, and argumentation of the discussion in relation to appropriate contemporary theoretical contributions.

Preliminary report

A scientific paper that contains unpublished preliminary results of scientific research that is ongoing or a problem set only theoretically without a complete elaboration.

Review paper

A paper that contains a concise overview of the state and tendencies of development of a scientific field, theoretical problems, or research topics.

Professional paper

Paper that contains useful contributions from the profession and for the profession, and does not have to represent original research.