Peer Review :: IKBFU's united scientific journal editorial office

×

Login
Password
Forgot your password?
Login As
You can log in if you are registered at one of these services:
   
The real and legitimate goal of the sciences is the endowment of human life with new inventions and riches
Francis Bacon

DOI-generator Search by DOI on Crossref.org

Peer Review

Peer review policy

  • The Baltic Region uses a double-blind peer review system, in which reviewers remain anonymous to the authors, and the authors' identity is not known to the reviews. All manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent experts having previous experience in the subject area and selected by the editor.  Most papers are sent to two reviewers, but some are sent to a third reviewer in case the two previously received reviews contradict each other. Referees are chosen for the following reasons: independence from the authors and their institutions, the ability to evaluate the submitted papers fairly, and recently evaluated submissions related to a similar topic.

  • Authors can suggest peer reviewers when submitting their articles. Suggested peer reviewers should not have co-authored publications with any of the authors during the past five years, should not be current collaborators, and should not be affiliated with of the same institution. Suggested reviewers will be considered alongside potential reviewers identified by the editor. Authors may also request exclusion of individuals as potential reviewers in case of clearly competing interests, close collaborators. 

  • In their work, all reviewers follow the principles formulated by the Committee on Publication Ethics.

  • The time period for peer review is established by the editor, whose responsibility is to minimize the time between submission and the decision to publish the article.

  • The reviewer’s report indicate:

o    correspondence of the title to the content of the article;

o    topicality of the article, its correspondence to the latest developments in the field;

o    readability of the article in terms of language, style, layout etc.;

o    novelty of the article in comparison to the previously published works;

o    other positive and negative features of the article that could be developed or corrected by the author;

o    recommendation to publish or to decline publication.

  • In addition to providing comments for the authors, reviewers are given the following five options to indicate their recommendations to the editors: 

o    accept

o    accept after minor corrections

o    accept after major corrections

o    resubmit for another review after major corrections

o    reject

  • In case the reviewer recommends to make changes to the article, his/her recommendations are sent to the author with a suggestion for revision. It is the author’s right to defend his/her position before the editorial board and the reviewers. A revised article is resubmitted for another review.

  • In case a positive decision is made, the secretary notifies the author and informs him\her about the time of publication.

  • A positive review is a necessary but not sufficient condition for publication. The editorial board makes the final decision.

Peer review is confidential. The author receives the text of the review. Confidentiality is breached only in cases of plagiarism or falsification

Peer Review Form (Example)