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. The process is designed to ensure academic rigour, transparency, and fairness in editorial decision-making, in accordance with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

All research articles undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. In the double-blind peer review procedure, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Each submission is first screened by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors to ensure it meets the journal’s scope, formatting guidelines, and ethical standards. Manuscripts that pass this stage are sent for peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Editors will assign at least two independent and objective reviewers to each paper.

The Reviewers are required to evaluate submissions based on originality, methodological rigour, clarity and coherence against the following criteria:

• Title and Keywords
  Whether the title and keywords appropriately reflect the scope and content of the paper.

• Abstract
  Whether the abstract adequately summarises the aims, methodology, results, and conclusions of the research.

• State of the Art
  Whether the paper provides a sufficient overview of existing research and clearly positions the study within the relevant scholarly context.

• Sources
  Whether the authors have consulted and cited relevant, up-to-date, and appropriate primary and secondary sources.

• Discussion
  Whether the paper articulates what is original or innovative, and how the findings relate to previous scholarship.

• Conclusions
  Whether the conclusions are well-supported by the data and argumentation presented throughout the manuscript.

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

• Final Recommendation
  Reviewers are asked to choose from the following options:

  • Accept – No revision needed

  • Accept – Minor revisions needed

  • Major revisions needed – Resubmit for review

  • Reject – Not suitable for publication in this journal

The choice of reviewers is at the Editor’s discretion. The reviewers must be knowledgeable about the subject area of the manuscript; they should not have recent joint publications with any of the authors.

All of the reviewers of a manuscript act independently and they are not aware 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 reviewers. The final decision is based on the combined evaluation of all reviews and the Editor-in-Chief’s assessment.  

During the review process Editor-in-Chief may require authors to provide additional information if they are necessary for the evaluation of the scholarly merit of the manuscript. These materials shall be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.

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.

Reviewers are expected to:

Provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of the manuscript’s scholarly quality, originality, methodology, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

• Originality and contribution to the field
• Clarity of structure and argumentation
• Use of sources and scholarly apparatus
• Methodological soundness
• Relevance to the Balkan studies and humanities

• Assess the manuscript based on the following criteria.

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

Treat the manuscript and review process as strictly confidential.

Declare any conflicts of interest that may compromise impartiality.

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.