Peer-review and guidelines for reviewers

1. Primary editorial evaluation

Transfer of manuscript to peer review and evaluation of the relevant section

The entrusted editor will acknowledge (via e-mail) receipt of the manuscript submitted. The manuscript is first screened by an editorial team (main editor and editors) who evaluate whether it is appropriate with respect to the journal´s profile and whether it meets requirements for the texts published in the journal. The requirements for the texts published in the journal are defined in Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement in the points 1.1-1.5, and 2.1-2.3. In the case that the members of the editorial team find that the requirements are not fulfilled, the editorial team reserves the right to reject the manuscript and to not transfer it to the next peer review process. The author is informed of the resolution of the primary evaluation (i.e. whether his manuscript is referred further to the reviewing process) via e-mail.

2. Rules for the choice of reviewers

Contributions assessed by the editorial team (editors and main editor)as fitting the scope of the journal as major articles, research reports or essays/ discussions/ overviews are sent in anonymous form to  two independent (possibly international) reviewers. The reviewers should have relevant experience and expertise with respect to the theme of manuscript, they should not be personally connected with the author, and the authors and reviewers must not have apparent conflicts of interests. The editors of Slovak Ethnology cannot hold the post of reviewers for texts submitted for publishing in this journal, but members of editorial board are allowed to be reviewers. There are two reviewers for one manuscript. (Special cases are mentioned below in the point 4. Fundamentally different reviews)

3. Guidelines for reviewers

The contacted reviewer has to acknowledge (via e-mail) the receipt of the manuscript submitted for peer-review process. By receiving the manuscript the reviewer is bound to meet the given deadline for review and to maintain anonymity of the reviewing process. The review can be sent only to the editorial team and the reviewer cannot verbally or in a written form inform a third party about the result. If the reviewer comes to the conviction that he is not able to ensure anonymity of the peer-review (for example he finds out the identity of the author) or that he comes into a conflict of interests (personal or professional), or he doesn´t feel to be competent enough for reviewing, he will inform the editorial team about these issues and will decline to draw up the review.

The reviewers should respect the following rules:

  • agree with reviewing only if they are aware of their competence in the given research area and of their ability to prepare the statement in the given time limit,

  • respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and not spread information about it (except necessary communication with editorial staff),

  • not misuse information from reviewing process for own profit (or profit of own organisation) or for disadvantage of others,

  • declare all possible conflicts of interests or biases concerning authors or the theme of manuscript,

  • draw up an objective and constructive statement,

  • avoid personal attacks and disparagement of the author,

  • draw up the statement in the time limit (it means in two weeks from the delivery of the manuscript.

(See also the point 3 in Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement.)

The reviewers work according to a standardized form where they evaluate:

  • clarity of aims of the major article/ research report, essay/discussion/overview,

  • its originality,

  • structure and language level,

  • suitability of methods,

  • correctness of citations,

  • accuracy of abstract and key words,

  • the quality of graphic supplements.

The reviewers should make sure that the submitted manuscript meets the requirements of the text published in the journal defined in Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement in the points 1.1-1.5, and 2.1-2.3. The reviewers also give opinion on the appropriateness of categorization of the manuscript into a given section or suggest its replacement to another section. Finally, the reviewers attach a brief and factual substantiation of their assessment.

4. Fundamentally different reviews

The editorial team accepts for publishing manuscripts, which are recommended by both reviews (without modifications, after minor or cardinal modifications). In cases of fundamentally different decisions, it means when one of the reviewers recommends the manuscript without modifications, after minor or cardinal modifications and the second one suggests to fundamentally revise the paper and to offer it for publishing only after major alteration, or doesn´t recommend it for publishing at all, the third reviewer is asked by editors for an opinion. In the case, that the third review assesses the manuscript as acceptable without modifications, after minor or cardinal modifications, the manuscript is accepted for publishing. In the case, that the third review recommends to revise the whole manuscript or doesn´t recommend its publishing, the manuscript is rejected.

5. Final evaluation by editorial team

With the advice of peer-reviewers the editorial team makes a decision about acceptance or rejection of the manuscript, as well as about necessary (or suggested) changes in the text. The entrusted editor informs the author about this decision via e-mail and sends him also the anonymous reviewers´ comments. The author has the right to appeal against the editors´ decision, the definitive verdict is in the competence of the main editor, who notifies the author in an adequate time period. In cases of violation of the Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement from the side of the editorial team, it is possible to appeal to the publisher, i.e. to the statutory representative of the Institute of Ethnology SAS. Responsibilities of the publisher are further defined in the point 5 of Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement



Zobraziť plávajúce menu