Journal website - For reviewers

Peer Review Guidelines

The Journal operates under a double anonymized peer review model (see NISO Peer Review Terminology). Our reviewers are essential to 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 (review reports are stored in OJS and accessible to the editorial team; optionally, reviewer comments may be published alongside accepted articles if both parties agree).
Post publication commenting: none.

The Journal applies external peer review.

Editor ensures that no reviewer is affiliated with the same institution as any author. If a reviewer recognizes the authors or identifies an institutional link, they must notify 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: Disclose any personal, professional, institutional, or financial conflicts (e.g. recent collaboration, same department).
Timely Response: Please respond promptly to review invitation.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscripts.
Ensure objectivity and impartiality in their evaluation.
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.
Report any ethical concerns (plagiarism, duplicate publication, data falsification) confidentially to the Editor:

✉ editor-be@net.efzg.hr

Subject: Ethical Concern – [Manuscript ID]

Recuse themselves if there is any actual or perceived conflict of interest (e.g., financial, institutional, or personal).

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:
✉ 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 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 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 are shorter in scope and intended for early dissemination. Reviewers should evaluate novelty, methodological clarity, and the potential of findings to stimulate further research.
Professional Papers: contribute to professional practice or policy development. They 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 types of content are not externally peer-reviewed but may be published at the discretion of the Editorial Board. These include:

Editorials
Book reviews
Obituaries
Announcements
Corrections

Such submissions are internally assessed and approved 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:

✉ editor-be@net.efzg.hr

Subject: OJS support – [Manuscript ID]

Confidentiality and Use of Content

Reviewers must not use or share any data, ideas, or information from manuscripts for personal or professional advantage. Any breach is considered serious misconduct.

Use of AI Tools

Reviewers are prohibited from uploading manuscripts or any part of their content to generative AI or third-party tools (e.g. ChatGPT). Any such breach will be classified as misconduct.

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)

Please include a brief summary of your evaluation and clearly structured comments for both the editor and 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.

Open Access Peer Review

In line with our commitment to transparency, we offer reviewers the option, by mutual agreement:

To have their comments published alongside accepted articles.
Comments can be published anonymously or with reviewer attribution, depending on the reviewer’s preference.
If reviewers would like comments to be published, we appreciate to indicate preference in the [Comments to the Editor] section during review.

All reviewers’ reports are securely stored within the OJS system, which ensures transparency and traceability of the peer review process. At present, the Journal does not publish full reviewers’ reports, but the system provides a permanent and accessible record for the editorial team.

This supports openness and integrity in scholarly communication.