1. Initial Screening

The peer review process is designed to uphold the highest academic standards by assisting the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and providing constructive feedback to authors. It ensures academic rigour, transparency, and fairness in accordance with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Double-Blind Peer Review  

Editors assign at least two independent and objective reviewers to each manuscript. Reviewers are selected for their expertise in the subject area and must not have recent joint publications with any of the authors.

All reviewers act independently and are unaware of each other’s identities. If two reviewers provide conflicting recommendations (e.g., one accepts and one rejects), the Editor-in-Chief may assign an additional reviewer. The final decision is based on the combined evaluations and the Editor-in-Chief’s overall assessment.

During the review process, the Editor-in-Chief may request additional information from the authors if necessary to evaluate the scholarly merit of the manuscript. All such materials are treated as confidential and must not be used for personal gain.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities and Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of each manuscript, based on the following criteria:

• Title and Keywords: Do they appropriately reflect the scope and content of the paper?

• Abstract: Does it clearly summarise the research objectives, methods, results, and conclusions?

• State of the Art: Is there an adequate overview of existing research and a clear positioning of the study within the scholarly context?

• Sources: Have the authors consulted and cited relevant and up-to-date primary and secondary sources?

• Discussion: Are the findings and their contribution to existing knowledge clearly articulated?

• Conclusions: Are the conclusions well-supported and logically derived from the results and argumentation?

• Additional Comments: Reviewers are encouraged to offer constructive suggestions for improving the manuscript or clarifying specific points.

In addition to the above, reviewers are asked to assess:

• Originality and contribution to the field

• Clarity of structure and argumentation

• Use of sources and scholarly apparatus

• Methodological soundness

• Relevance to Balkan studies and the humanities

Reviewers are also expected to:

• Refrain from any personal criticism of the author and base comments solely on academic merit

• Treat the manuscript and review process as strictly confidential

• Declare any conflicts of interest that may compromise impartiality

  4. Review Outcome and Timeline 

  Reviewers must select one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept – No revision needed

  • Accept – Minor revisions needed

  • Major revisions needed – Resubmit for review

  • Reject – Not suitable for publication in this journal

  The review and editorial decision process is designed to be completed within four (4) months from the date of submission. Reviewers are normally given 4–6 weeks to complete their evaluation after accepting the invitation.

  The editorial team ensures quality control of reviews. In cases where authors raise convincing concerns about a review’s objectivity or academic merit, the editor may seek additional evaluations to ensure fairness and scholarly integrity.

5. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should alert the editor to any suspicion of:

• Plagiarism

• Duplicate submission

• Ethical concerns in the research process

• Inadequate citation of sources

Reviewers must not:

• Use the manuscript’s content for their own research

• Share the manuscript with third parties

• Contact the author directly

The review and editorial decision process is designed to be completed within four months from the date of submission.