Guidelines for Reviewers

Dear Prospective Reviewer:

Given your expertise, we invite you to be a reviewer of articles submitted to the Strani jezici journal. Your assistance in the review process will help us select quality articles for publication. Please accept our invitation if you have the time to provide a high-quality review and do not have any potential conflict of interest.

It is essential that you respond to our invitation promptly in order not to slow down the review process.

If you decide to decline our invitation, it would be helpful if you could provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

If you accept, please first read the manuscript once all the way through and give yourself time to think about it from your own expert perspective.

We would like to remind you that according to the COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers, the review process is strictly confidential. This means that regardless of your decision, during and after the review process, you must not share information about the manuscript or other materials and data you receive without the consent of the Editor-in-Chief or authors.

Before you write the review, make sure you know what the focus of the journal Strani jezici is, what kind of articles the journal publishes and what specific reviewing criteria (see Review form) you need to apply while reviewing the manuscript.

The following checkpoints should help you to write a review report that would help the Editor-in-Chief make a valid and objective decision on accepting or rejecting the manuscript.

  • Give specific comments and suggestions, including those about scientific/professional aspects (originality, language, theoretical background, methodology, presentation and interpretation of results, discussion, conclusion, implications).
  • Give your overall opinion of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, whether it has a sufficient impact and adds to the current knowledge in the field.
  • Point out any journal-specific points, e.g. whether it is in compliance with the journal’s focus, its aim, its audience, whether it adheres to its standards.
  • If you have some ethical concerns (plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate data manipulation, unethical conduct with human subjects, copyrights issues etc.), raise your suspicions with the Editor-in-Chief, providing as much detail as possible. See the Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement for more information.

When writing the review report, be aware of the following:

  • Your comments should be courteous, objective and constructive, and your suggestions should be applicable and help authors to improve the article. They should not include any personal details including your name.
  • Since your comments provide valuable insight into the deficiencies of the work, it is very important that you explain your comments in a way that both the authors and the Editor-in-Chief can easily follow your line of argument and your suggestions for improvement.
  • If you suggest that the authors include citations to your (or your associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons, and not with the intention of increasing your citation counts or enhancing the visibility of your work (or that of your associates).
  • Sometimes reviewers, editors and others involved in the publishing process are under the negative impact of the so-called unconscious bias.  Thus, we ask you to try to recognize and suppress unconscious bias.

When you make a recommendation, you should carefully consider the following categories the Strani jezici journal applies for (A) classifying and (B) evaluating articles:

  1. A) Categories for classification
  • Original research article: the results of the original unpublished study are presented in such a way that the study can be replicated or its results verified.
  • Preliminary communication: the results of the original unpublished (un)finished study are presented or some new scientific insights are announced.
  • State-of-the-art article: a critical review of the current knowledge in some field is given in such a way that the author’s original contribution to the field can be recognized.
  • Professional paper: a useful contribution to the profession is given through the description of application of some theoretical implications or research results in the own professional life.
  1. B) Categories for evaluation
  • Accept in the present form
  • Accept after minor revisions (explain the revision that is required in the report and/or in the manuscript)
  • Major revisions needed (explain the revision that is required in the report and/or in the manuscript, and indicate to the Editor-in-Chief whether or not you would be willing to review the revised article)
  • Reject (explain reasons in the report)

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision whether to accept or reject an article. He/she will consider the views of two independent reviewers and may ask for a third reviewer if necessary or ask the author for a revised article before making a final decision. If you are interested in the Editor-in-Chief’s final decision, you can contact him/her to find out whether the article was accepted or rejected.

Apart from communicating with reviewers through electronic means, the Editor-in-Chief and his/her editorial team do not take part in the reviewing process.

The Review form is available below. The deadline for submitting a review is 30 days of receipt of the manuscript. If, for any reason, you will be unable to meet this timeline, please notify the editor as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Strani jezici Editorial Board