Every paper submitted for publishing in journal «Scientific vector of the Balkans» shall be reviewed.
Blind peer review– the reviewer knows the names of the authors, while the authors do not know the names of the reviewers.
Within one day after the paper submission, the authorized secretary shall forward the paper to Deputy Editor responsible for a corresponding science field to select reviewers, who can be appointed from specialists with PhD or Doctor degree in the respective field of science. The members of the Editorial Board can be reviewers as well.
The Deputy Editor chooses a reviewer within three days. The authorized secretary forwards the manuscript to the reviewer within one day.
Deputy editor in the relevant thematic way within 3 days, provided there is a reference for the purpose of the scientific field, which is characterized by a certain scientific character and national competence of the author. scientific specialty, direction and nationality. If necessary, consult the editor-in-chief who is not on the list of members of the Editorial Board; consent to be included in the extension of the panel of reviewers.
By his actions, the Deputy Editor should select such a reviewer for an initial blind review to ensure the impartial evaluation process and to show that the reviewers are independent of the authors, ie they are not related to the same institution. for this purpose, may ask the reviewer for general information on how far he / she knows the author in question, who will review it.
It respects the basic rule of choosing a reviewer who does not work in the same institution as the author of the scientific publication.
The reviewer makes a review (fill in the form below), and he or she e-mails it to the authorized secretary: firstname.lastname@example.org (for articles in bulgarian language), email@example.com ((for articles in other languages) within 3 weeks after he or she receives the paper.
The reviewer can recommend the paper to be accepted for publication; recommend it to be accepted for publication with revision; or recommend to decline the paper. If the reviewer recommends the paper to be accepted for publication with revision, or recommends the paper to be declined, he or she is to provide reasons for such decision in the review.
If the paper is recommended for publication with revision, the authorized secretary shall forward the review to the author for revision.
Upon receiving the revised paper the authorized secretary forwards the manuscript it to the same reviewer for another review within one day.
In case the material is declined, the authorized secretary e-mails the review to the author and points out the possibility of repeated reviewing at the author’s discretion. The reviewer’s name will be revealed to the author only by a written consent of the reviewer.
In case the paper is rejected for the second time, the authorized secretary e-mails the review to the author. The paper can not be reviewed more than two times.
The paper is forwarded for technical editing after reviewing. The Technical Editor can reject the paper and send it to the author for revision to make sure it meets all formal and technical requirements. The paper can be rejected by the Editor-in-Chief/Editor responsible for a specific science field for the reasons of his or her disagreement with the review, discovered conflict of interests, or violation of ethics.
Most common reasons for declining:
– the paper has poor or incorrect structure
– the paper is not enough detailed for readers to fully understand the analysis offered by the authors
– the paper has no scientific novelty
– the paper has not enough relevant references
– the paper contains theories, concepts or conclusions that are not properly substantiated by necessary data, argumentations or information
– the paper does not provide detailed enough description of methods and materials, which would allow other researchers to repeat the experiment
– the paper lacks clear descriptions or explanations of verifiable hypotheses, details and stages of experiments, examples of statistical or experimental samples
– the paper gives poor description of conducted experiments, or contains errors and mistakes, or does not include statistical analysis
– the paper is written with the language that does not meet the requirements to a scientific paper
– the paper contains unsubstantiated criticism towards the existing fundamental propositions, generally accepted theories and facts
– the paper has an expressed political character, and contains statements and appeals inconsistent with generally accepted norms.
If your paper was declined
– consider all the points that the editor and the reviewer have commented on;
– describe all the revisions made to your paper in your cover letter;
– conduct all additional experiments or analyses recommended by the reviewer (if you are sure that those changes will not make your paper better, please substantiate this opinion in detail);
– in the cover letter describe all the reviewer’s comments you agree with, and those you disagree with;
– provide polite and scientific substantiation of all the comments you do not agree with;
– please highlight all revisions and changes you made in your paper;
– send the revised manuscript together with your cover letter within the period of time set by the editor.
It is better not to choose another journal for your publication, unless either of the following happened:
– the editor sent you an answer that the subject matter of your paper does not fit the journal
– your paper was declined even after you have revised each comment and recommendation of the reviewer
– your paper was declined by two reviewers or the editor
– the process of manuscript consideration takes much more time than the journal standard procedure, and the editors can not expedite it. In this case, it is very important that you notify the editors that you decided not to publish your paper in this journal before you submit the paper for publishing in another journal.
Publication of a paper is a complicated process, and you are expected to be ready to work on your paper making sure conside