Poslovna izvrsnost - Business Excellence Journal

Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Guidelines

The journal operates under a double-anonymized peer-review model (see NISO Peer Review Terminology). Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the academic quality, rigor, and international relevance of the journal.

Peer Review Model (NISO Standard Terminology)

Identity transparency: double anonymized (author and reviewer identities are not disclosed to each other; both identities are known only to the editor).
Reviewer interacts with: editor (all communication is mediated through the editor via the OJS system; there is no direct interaction between reviewers or between reviewers and authors).
Review information published: none (peer review reports are stored in OJS and accessible only to editor; reports and reviewer identities are not published alongside the article).
Post-publication discussion: letters to the editor (see Publication Ethics).

The journal applies external peer review.

Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors in a double-anonymized process. If a reviewer recognizes the authors, identifies an institutional link, or if anonymity is otherwise compromised at any stage, the reviewer must inform the editor and withdraw from the review.

Who are our reviewers?

Members of the academic community with advanced expertise in relevant fields.
Independent, most often external experts, both domestic and international.
Typically hold a doctoral degree and have a proven research track record.
Actively engaged in research, with publications in the same or related fields.
In exceptional cases, members of the Editorial Board may be invited as reviewers when highly specific subject expertise is required, provided there is no conflict of interest.

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Before agreeing to review a manuscript, please consider:

Expertise: Is the subject within your academic competence?
Availability: Can you complete the review within 4–6 weeks?
Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest (e.g., recent collaboration, same department/institution, financial or personal relationships). If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the invitation. If a conflict becomes apparent after accepting, reviewers must inform the editor and withdraw from the review.
Timely Response: Please respond promptly to review invitation.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscripts.
Do not involve anyone else (e.g., colleagues or junior researchers/students) in the review or share manuscript/review materials without the editor’s prior permission. If permission is granted, inform the editor of all individuals involved and maintain full confidentiality.
Ensure objectivity and impartiality in their evaluation, focusing solely on scholarly merit and relevance to the journal’s scope.
Apply critical thinking and constructiveness, offering reasoned arguments and specific suggestions for improvement.
Communicate at a high professional standard, avoiding personal remarks or inappropriate language.
Reviewers must not contact authors directly; all communication must be mediated through the editor via OJS.
Report any ethical concerns (plagiarism, duplicate publication, data falsification) confidentially to the Editorial Office:

✉ editor-be@net.efzg.hr

Subject: Ethical Concern – [Manuscript ID]

HOW TO BECOME A REVIEWER

We welcome expressions of interest from scholars and professionals whose research interests align with the journal’s scope.

To apply, please send your CV, ORCID ID, and areas of expertise to the Editorial Office:
✉ editor-be@net.efzg.hr

Or, register on the journal’s OJS platform and select the “Reviewer” role in your profile [View Profile>Roles] to express your "Reviewing interests".

OJS Registration ->

Manuscript Categorization and Review Procedures

Each research manuscript is normally reviewed by two independent external reviewers. In cases where reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the handling editor may either invite a third reviewer or make a final editorial decision based on the available evidence.

When reviewing a manuscript, please evaluate it within the context of its designated category:

Original Research Papers: present unpublished results of original research. Reviewers should assess the rigor of the methods, the validity of the analysis, and whether the conclusions are fully supported by the data.
Review Articles: provide a comprehensive and critical overview of a research topic, synthesizing prior studies and evaluating the current state of knowledge. Reviewers should consider whether the article offers a balanced, well-structured synthesis and contributes to theoretical or practical understanding.
Preliminary Communications: report initial or partial findings from ongoing research. These manuscripts are shorter in scope and intended for early dissemination. Reviewers should evaluate novelty, methodological clarity, and the potential of the findings to stimulate further research.
Professional Papers: contribute to professional practice or policy development. These manuscripts do not contain original scientific research. Reviewers should focus on the paper’s practical value, clarity, and evidence-based contribution to professional audiences.

Conference Papers

Conference-based submissions may occasionally be received by the Journal as extended and substantially revised versions of papers previously presented at academic conferences. Only manuscripts derived from conference abstracts, not from full published papers, are eligible for peer-review.
These submissions are treated as new manuscripts and are evaluated under the Journal’s independent peer review policy. While the Journal applies a double-anonymous review process, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed for work that has been publicly presented.
When reviewing such manuscripts, reviewers should consider:
- whether the submission demonstrates significant new content or development beyond the original conference version,
- whether the reused materials (tables, figures, or data) are properly acknowledged and cited to the original conference source,
- and whether the paper meets the same scholarly and methodological standards expected of all submissions.
Accepted articles must include a clear statement of the conference title, date, and location.

Non-Peer Reviewed Content

Certain content types (e.g., editorials, book reviews, announcements, and corrections) are not externally peer-reviewed and are assessed internally by the Editorial Board prior to publication.

Evaluation

When reviewing a manuscript, please consider the following key aspects:

Originality and novelty
Scope alignment
Theoretical foundation
Methodological soundness
Clarity of analysis and interpretation
Structure and clarity of presentation
Scholarly or practical contribution.

Full evaluation criteria and guidance are provided within the OJS system after a review assignment is accepted. In case of technical or system-related support for the OJS platform, please contact the Editorial Office:

✉ editor-be@net.efzg.hr

Subject: OJS support – [Manuscript ID]

Confidentiality and Use of Content

Reviewers must comply with the journal’s confidentiality and use-of-content requirements as set out in the Peer Review Policy.

Any breach is considered serious misconduct.

Use of AI Tools

Reviewers may use generative AI only for language / grammar / formatting improvements of their own review report, without inputting any manuscript content or identifiers. Uploading or inputting manuscripts (or any identifiable manuscript content) into generative AI tools is prohibited. For details, see the Peer Review Policy.

Making Your Recommendation

At the end of your review, select one of the following recommendations:

Accept (ready or only minor edits needed)
Minor Revisions (language, formatting, referencing fixes)
Major Revisions (substantial theoretical, methodological, or analytical changes)
Reject (out of scope, flawed, lacks contribution).

In the reviewer form, please structure your report into:

Comments to the Editor
Comments to the Authors.

Recognition and Contribution

Reviewers play a vital role in the journal's community. As appreciation:

Certificates of Review are available upon request.
Outstanding reviewers may be recognized annually on the Journal website.
Dedicated reviewers may be invited to join the editorial team.

Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion

We encourage participation from reviewers of all backgrounds, geographic regions, and career stages, reflecting our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion in scholarly publishing.