Review Process
October 11, 2015 — 20:29

Slovenščina 2.0 journal relies on the double-blind peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles.

The journal Editor-in-Chief (or the Guest Editor in case of special issues) performs an initial appraisal of each submitted manuscript based on required formal conditions (e.g. length. structure), as well as timeliness, the interest and importance of the topic, the use of the scientific method, the clarity of the presentation (including the standard of language of the manuscript), and the relevance to readers. All manuscripts submitted to the journal as scientific articles are also checked for originality using anti-plagiarism software Turnitin (see Publication Ethics).

If it is felt that the article meets the formal and other abovementioned criteria, it is sent to peer review. All articles are reviewed by two members of the journal’s international Editorial Board and/or other specialists of equal repute, if that is required due to the topic of the article. Reviewers are required to disclose potential conflicts of interests that may affect their ability to provide an unbiased review of an article. If there is a significant difference between the two reviews, the Editor-in-Chief will obtain the third blind review.

Reviewers will be looking at a paper with regard to its originality, significance for the field, scientific and methodological soundness (including consideration of other relevant research in the field), presentation of the argument, and language. Reviews of contributions in Slovene are written in Slovene, reviews of contributions in English are written in English.

Peer Reviewers complete a referee report form, providing the title of the article, the final grade, the review, and any comments for the author(s) and/or the Editor-in-Chief.
There are four possible outcomes:

  • Accept: the paper will be published as is.
  • Minor revision: the author will be required to revise the paper as per the reviewers’ comments. The revised paper should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. The paper will be accepted at the Editor-in-Chief’s discretion.
  • Major revision: the author will be required to significantly revise the paper as per the reviewers’ comments. The revised paper should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief, along with a separate file detailing the changes and the replies to the reviewers’ comments. The paper will then undergo another, final round of refereeing; the referees send their comments to the Editor.
  • Reject: the paper will not be published.
    Constructive comments that might help the authors improve their work are passed on anonymously (even if we do not accept the paper). Reviews are sent to authors within two months of the submission of a manuscript.

Authors should implement comments of the reviewers and send the corrected version of the paper by the deadline given by the Editor-in-Chief.

Authors are notified of the acceptance/rejection of their manuscript for publication. If accepted, authors are informed of the section in which the paper will be published. Before the publication, authors are sent their contributions for a final proof. Final corrections must be provided by authors within 5 working days or by the deadline set by the Editor-in-Chief or Technical Editor. Authors are responsible for any corrections (excluding typographical corrections and changes in formatting), so they should thoroughly check their paper before making the submission of the final version.

Review Process