PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Preliminary Check

Submitted papers first go through a preliminary check by the members of Godišnjak’s Editorial Board. If the paper fulfills basic criteria for publishing, i.e. if it contains the allowed number of characters, if it follows instructions for proper referencing and listing bibliography, if it does not violate the norms of academic ethics, and corresponds to the journal’s aims and scope, the Editorial Board will forward the paper to two expert reviewers. If the author did not fulfill the basic criteria for publishing, the Editorial Board will inform the author about necessary corrections and will accept the paper after the author corrects it. The Editorial Board will not accept papers that show obvious signs of plagiarism or papers that, by their approach or topic, fail to fulfill basic requirements of scientific seriousness (well-known or well-researched topics without any original contribution, using inadequate or pseudoscientific sources, lack of adequate scientific methods, etc). All papers containing expressions of intolerance or hate speech will be automatically rejected and their authors will not be able to publish in Godišnjak for the next three years. Godišnjak does not charge for article processing or publication.

Double-Blind Peer Review

The reviewer assesses originality, i.e. scientific or professional contributions of the paper, its innovativeness and methodology, proposes categorization, evaluates the bibliography, and gives consent for publication. The paper can be published only after it was positively assessed by two reviewers who are experts in the paper’s topic and field. The peer review process is conducted in anonymity, i.e. the author does not know the reviewers’ identities and reviewers do not know the author’s identity. In order to secure anonymity, reviewers cannot work in the same institution as the author. After reviewing the paper, reviewers fill provided peer review form. Peer review should be conducted no longer than one month after receiving the paper. One expert can review a maximum of two papers per issue. The authors are obliged to accept and follow the reviewer’s suggestions.

Reviewers are required to respect all ethical and professional norms during the peer review process. The Editorial Board will inform all reviewers about the journal’s editorial policies, timelines for conducting peer review, etc. If the reviewers somehow find out the author’s identity or uncover a potential conflict of interest, they are expected to refrain from peer review and inform the Editorial Board about their decision. If the reviewers recognize potential plagiarism or any other kind of misconduct, they should inform the Editorial Board. The reviewers are required to read the entire paper and to fairly assess all its positive and negative aspects, as well as to offer comments that might be useful for correcting the paper. These comments might be intended for Editorial Board or the author. Editorial Board will not change the reviewer’s comments. Editorial Board does not allow insulting comments about the author or their paper. If the reviewer personally dislikes the paper’s conclusions or the opinions of referenced experts, provided that these conclusions and opinions are scientifically valid, Editorial Board expects reviewers to be objective. If the reviewer fails to fulfill their responsibilities or violates ethical norms, the Editorial Board will not accept their assessment and will send the paper to another reviewer.

Categorization and Final Decision

The reviewers propose a categorization of the paper under the following categories: original scientific paper, scientific review, preliminary communication, and professional paper.

The original scientific paper follows IMRAD organizational structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) and is the first publication of the results of scientific research conducted following scientific methods, which are described in a manner that enables others to duplicate the research and reaffirm the results.

Scientific review offers a new synthesis based on the review of the newest publication on a certain topic, accomplished by summarization, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation in order to establish regularity, rule, trend, or causal relationship regarding researched phenomena. In other words, it is a paper that contains an original, detailed, and critical review of a scientific question or field to which the author has made certain contributions.

Preliminary communication is an original scientific paper that has a smaller volume and preliminary character, where certain IMRAD elements might be omitted. It is a concise report on the results of completed scientific research or yet unfinished work.

The professional paper does not contain new scientific findings and theories but explores those that are already researched and known. The author’s main goal is to gather and interpret known scientific facts, information, and theories that might be useful in the practical field. In other words, a professional paper describes experiences that might be useful for the improvement of professional practice, not necessarily based on the scientific method.

Reviewers’ final decision is expressed in one of four ways: 1) the paper can be published without corrections; 2) the paper can be published after implementing the reviewer’s suggestions; 3) the paper can be published after rewriting and new peer review; 4) paper is not recommended for publication. If both reviewers positively assess the paper, it will be published in Godišnjak. If one assessment is positive and the other is negative, the paper will be sent to a third reviewer whose decision will be final. If both assessments are negative, the paper will not be published in Godišnjak.

Complaint against Peer Review Process

If the author suspects that the peer review process included a violation of professional ethics, they should inform the Editorial Board and offer a detailed explanation. Legitimate complaints may refer to breaching of anonymity, i.e. if the reviewer has somehow found out the author’s identity, or to the reviewer’s insulting comments against the author or paper. The author may also complain to the Editorial Board if the reviewer’s comments indicate that the paper was not completely or carefully reviewed, or if the reviewer has negatively assessed the author’s and referenced experts’ opinions based on personal bias. Editorial Board will consider the complaint and reach a decision in one week. If the reviewer has violated the norms of professional ethics, the Editorial Board will annul the peer review and send the paper to another expert. If the complaint was unjustified, the Editorial Board will confirm the peer review and reach the final decision on the paper based on both reviews.

Peer Review Template