Poslovna izvrsnost - Business Excellence Journal

Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Process

All research manuscripts (including original research articles, review articles, and preliminary communications) and professional papers submitted to the journal undergo a double-anonymized peer review process. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other; their identities are known only to the editor. All communication between authors and reviewers is mediated through the editor and managed via the journal’s online submission system (OJS).

Peer review reports are securely stored in OJS and are accessible to editor for internal traceability and auditability.

Review information published: The journal does not publish peer review reports or reviewer identities alongside the published article.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript and all files are prepared for double-anonymized review (e.g., removing identifying information from the text, acknowledgements, and file metadata).

In a double-anonymized process, reviewers must not attempt to identify authors; if the authors are recognized, an institutional link is identified, or anonymity is otherwise compromised at any stage, the reviewer must inform the editor and withdraw from the review.

Peer Review Model (NISO Terminology)

The journal labels its peer review model using NISO Peer Review Terminology:

Identity transparency: double anonymized
Reviewer interacts with: editor (via OJS)
Review information published: none
Post-publication discussion: Letters to the Editor

External peer review is applied to all eligible manuscript types as described in this policy.

External Review

Each eligible manuscript type that undergoes external peer review under this policy (research manuscripts and professional papers) is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers.

Reviewers are selected to avoid conflicts of interest (e.g., no reviewers from the same institution as any author and no recent collaborators). Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest and decline or withdraw from the review at any stage, where appropriate.

Members of the Editorial Board are generally not invited to serve as reviewers. However, in exceptional cases where highly specific expertise is required and no conflicts of interest exist, an Editorial Board member may be invited; in such cases, they are subject to the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest safeguards as all reviewers.

Confidentiality and Use of Content

All submitted manuscripts, supplementary files, and peer review communications are confidential. Reviewers must not use or share any data, ideas, or information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.
Reviewers must not involve anyone else in the review (including colleagues or junior researchers/students) or share the manuscript/review materials without prior permission from the editor. If permission is granted, the reviewer must ensure confidentiality and disclose to the editor the names and roles of all individuals who contributed to the review.
Manuscript content must not be used in the reviewer’s own work until it is publicly available.
Reviewers should not request citations primarily to increase citations to their own work or to specific journals; any citation suggestions must be directly relevant and justified.

Any breach of these obligations is considered serious misconduct.

Use of AI Tools

Reviewers must not upload or input any submitted manuscripts, supplementary files, or any identifiable manuscript content into generative AI systems or third-party tools/services.

Limited exception: reviewers may use generative AI solely for language, grammar, or formatting improvements of their own peer review report, provided that:

no manuscript content is included (no quotations, paraphrases, data, tables/figures, methods/results descriptions, or other non-public details),
no identifiers are included (e.g., manuscript ID, title, author/institution information),
the reviewer remains fully responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the report.

Any breach of confidentiality via AI tools is classified as serious misconduct.

Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewers’ reports, the editor may decide to:

Accept the manuscript
Request minor revisions
Request major revisions
Reject the submission.

In cases of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be invited. Revised manuscripts may undergo further review, particularly after major revisions.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision within 30 days by submitting a brief, reasoned request to the Editorial Office (see our Appeals process for details). Appeals are reviewed in accordance with the journal’s complaints and appeals procedure.

Suggested Reviewers (optional)

Authors may propose up to three potential reviewers in the cover letter at the time of submission. These suggestions are non-binding and primarily serve to expand the journal’s reviewer database. Suggested reviewers are not automatically assigned; they may be considered at the editor’s discretion after independent verification and conflict-of-interest screening.

Suggested names must include:

Full name
Institutional affiliation
Official institutional email address

The editorial team makes the final decision on reviewer selection, including assessment of potential conflicts of interest.

Non-Peer-Reviewed Content

Certain contributions (e.g., editorials, book reviews, announcements, and corrections) are evaluated internally by the Editorial Board and do not undergo external peer review.

Post-Publication Discussion

Post-publication scholarly discussion is possible via Letters to the Editor (see Publication Ethics: Post-Publication Discussion). Accepted items are published with their own DOI and linked to the original article.

Detailed reviewer responsibilities and procedures are provided in the Peer Review Guidelines and form an integral part of this policy.