For reviewers

All research articles published in Strani pravni život (Foreign Legal Life) undergo a rigorous peer review. The first review is based on an initial editor screening, which is followed by a more detailed review by at least two anonymous reviewers.

Each submitted manuscript is evaluated on the following basis:

  • the originality of its contribution to the field of scholarly publishing;
  • the soundness of its theory and methodology given the topic;
  • the coherence of its analysis;
  • its ability to communicate to readers (grammar and style).

Peer review

Submitted manuscripts are subject to a peer review process. The purpose of peer review is to assists the Editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author it may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Submitted manuscript goes through double-blind peer review process. Double-blind peer review means that reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers. There have to be at least two independent reviewers. The typical period of time allowed for reviews is 2-4 weeks.

Reviewers must not have conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the funding sources for the research. If such conflicts exist, the reviewers must report them to the Editor without delay.

Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor without delay.

Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Manuscript submission

Authors submit manuscripts via the online system for journal editing (OJS). After the submission, the acknowledgment letter is sent to the author to confirm the receipt of the manuscript. The Editor in chief first reviews manuscripts. Editor in chief is assisted by Section Editors (could also be Co- or Associated Editors). The Editor assigns a Section Editor to see the manuscript through the complete review process and return it with a recommendation or decision.

The manuscript is checked to see if it meets the scope of the Journal and its formal requirements. It is checked that the manuscript has been written and styled in accordance with the prescribed Journal style, that it has an abstract (in Serbian and English), keywords and correct reference system; and that the correct blinding system has been used. If anything is missing the author is asked to complete it before the manuscript is sent out for review.

If it is determined that the manuscript is incorrect or unsuitable, the author is informed and the manuscript filed (or returned if requested) will be rejected. A Rejection letter is sent to the author stating the reason for rejection.

If the manuscript conforms to the aims and scope of the Journal and formally abides by the Instructions to Authors it is sent out for review.

Depending on the type of paper, it could be accepted immediately for publication (invited Editorial, Book review etc) by the Editor in chief without conducting review process.

The manuscript is sent out for review. The reviewer reads and evaluates the manuscript and eventually sends a review report to the Editor in chief. The time for review can be set to 2-4 weeks. The reviewer is provided with clear instructions for the work outlined in the form of a Review report containing a number of questions to be considered. The reviewer is also given the possibility to write additional comments in the free form, or in the paper using Track Changes and Comments section, but using the adequate blinding system so that his/her identity stays secret to the author(s).

Based on the reviewers’ comments the Editor in chief makes a decision to:

  • Accept the manuscript without further revision
  • Accept after revision
  • Ask authors to resubmit
  • Reject

An acceptance letter is sent to the author and the final manuscript is forwarded to production. Sometimes, the authors are requested to revise in accordance with reviewers’ comments and submit the updated version or their manuscript to the Editor in chief. The deadline for the author to review the article is set to 2 weeks after the receipt of the review, but upon the decision of the Editorial board can be extended depending on the additional data, information or argument required.

After review, a manuscript goes to the Technical Editor who will correct the manuscript concerning the correct referencing system, confirmation with the journal style and layout.

When he/she finishes his/her work they send manuscripts to proofreading. Afterwards, manuscript is sent to the print break. Person in charge of print break is responsible for structuring the original manuscript, including figures and tables, into an article, activating necessary links and preparing the manuscript in the various formats (e.g. PDF).

When all the previous stages are conducted, manuscript is sent to Editor in chief who confirms that the manuscript has gone through all the stages and can be published.

All of the reviewers of a paper act independently and they are not aware of each other’s identities. If the decisions of the two reviewers are not the same (accept/reject), the Editor may assign additional reviewers.

The Editorial team shall ensure reasonable quality control for the reviews. With respect to reviewers whose reviews are convincingly questioned by authors, special attention will be paid to ensure that the reviews are objective and high in academic standard. When there is any doubt with regard to the objectivity of the reviews or quality of the review, additional reviewers will be assigned.

BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR REVIEWERS

The reviewer should adhere to COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and under such conditions the peer reviewers should:

  • only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner
  • respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
  • not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
  • declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
  • not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
  • be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments
  • acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner
  • provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
  • recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct

REVIEW USING OJS

Review process in the journal Strani pravni život (Foreign Legal Life) is conducted using online platform for online editing of journals (OJS). The reviewers will receive an e-mail from the Editor inquiring them to conduct the review. If the reviewer accepts to conduct the review, he/she is asked to fill out an electronic form containing several questions. Reviewer is required to grade each segment of the paper set in the review form. If the grade is 3 or lower, the reviewer is obliged to write additional comments under each question in free form. Also, the reviewer can make suggestions to the author in the paper using Track Changes and Comments section, but using the adequate blinding system so that his/her identity stays secret to the author(s). If so, the reviewer should attach said document(s) when completing his/her review.

Signing Up as a Reviewer

When you register as a user with the website, you may be asked to sign up for the reviewer role. If this has been enabled, you can add the reviewer role at any time, even if you’ve already registered, by going to the User Profile page in the editorial backend.

You'll also be asked to specify your reviewer interests, so that editors can make better choices when selecting reviewers for a submission.

In many cases, you may have already been added into the system as a reviewer. This happens when an editor wants to invite you to review a submission but you’re not yet registered in the system.

Completing a Review

You can see if you’ve been assigned any reviews by going to the Submissions page in the editorial backend. If you see any submissions in the My Assigned area, you can click on the link indicating its current stage to access the reviewer walk-through.

Request

The first step requests that you accept or decline the request to perform a review. You’ll find the relevant submission details as well as due dates for responding to the request and submitting your review. Reviewer shall receive review request by e-mail from the editor. Strani pravni život uses one-click review access, i.e. by clicking on the link the reviewer can access the manuscript and review form. Reviewer cannot see the manuscript before he/she has accepted to review it.

Guidelines

Second tab of the review form contains reviewer guidelines to ensure that you’re able to provide a review in the format and according to the standards desired.

Download & Review

You’ll find the Review Files for you to download and review. Once you’ve evaluated the files, you'll be asked to enter your review in the review form. Review form contains several questions. Each question requires grading on scale 1 to 5 (1 being the lowest and 5 the highest score). Additional comments, suggestions, annotations can be made under each question in free form. We especially value the comments in case you have suggested to the author to modify some aspects of the manuscript or you point to some deficiencies of the paper making it unsuitable to be published.

GRADING SYSTEM:

5= very good; 4= good; 3= minor issues (easily corrigible); 2= fundamental issues that require thorough revision of the manuscript; 1= manuscript doesn't comply with the standards of publication

If you prepared your review in a separate file, you can instead upload that file at the bottom of the page.

Completion

Editor will send an acknowledgment to the reviewer by email once he/she has read the review.

A record of your reviews is kept in the system, so editors can see -- and appreciate -- how many reviews you've done for the journal at all times.

GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

Before start with reviewing if there is any conflict of interest, please notify the Editor in Chief.

Each received article is forwarded to two independent reviewers – double blind review (reviewers do not know who is the author of the work, the author does not know who are the reviewers of his work). We insist on anonymity because we believe that this procedure will contribute to more independent, more critical and better examination papers.

Each reviewer has a period of 2-4 weeks to review the article. If you are unable to comply with deadlines, please inform without delay notify the Editor in Chief. The reviewer does not have the rights to the content of the paper, the other, or that data from work that benefits are reviewed for any purpose.

Reviewers have an obligation to care about ethical issues. If the paper is plagiarized or if the same title published in another journal or proceedings, please inform without delay notify the Editor in Chief.

Investigate the journal’s content

First thing you need is to watch the originality, relevance, presentation and the importance of the manuscript. Visit the journal homepage and look at the Instructions for Authors to see if the paper meets the submission criteria of the journal. This will help you in deciding whether the paper being reviewed is suitable or not.

In the review form that you get, write your opinion - report on the quantitative work.

How to write your report

Complete the all review questions in the report form. If you think it is necessary, make suggestions as to how the author can improve clarity, succinctness, and the overall quality of presentation. In case that the reviewer suggest publication under certain conditions, it is expected from the reviewer to make suggestions regarding the necessary changes (shortening of the manuscript, revision or omission of certain parts) that can be given through the evaluation report or in the text of the paper (track changes). In case that the reviewer suggests the rejection of the paper (negative review) it is expected that the reviewer thoroughly elaborates why the paper is not suitable for publication.

Try to see if the article fits the scope of the journal, whether the article is original, if the research helps to expand of further research in this subject area, would the paper be of interest to the readership of the journal. If on some of these question you find answer No, consider recommending that the author submits the paper in some related journal. Also, look if the article is written in Standard English language, is there an abstract, as well as a concluding section.

Make a recommendation

After you finished reading the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication. You can make following decisions:

  • Accept the paper for publication.
  • Conditionally accept the paper for publication – the acceptance is under the condition that the author modifies the paper in accordance with suggestions of the reviewer.
  • Return the paper to the author for a thorough revision and ask the author to resubmit the paper for a new review.
  • Reject the paper.

Revised papers

When authors make revisions to their article in response to reviewer comments, they are asked to submit a list of changes and any comments for transmission to the reviewers.

If possible, the revised version is usually returned to the original reviewer who is then asked to affirm whether the revisions have been carried out satisfactorily.

What if you cannot make review?

If you cannot make review you should immediately notify the editorial office that you cannot do this job. If you are unable to complete your report on a paper in the agreed time-frame inform the editorial office as soon as possible so that the refereeing procedure is not delayed.

More about Review Guidelines you can find on the link http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines_0.pdf