The editorial team comprises the editor-in-chief, executive editors and the editorial board.
The executive editors perform the initial assessment of manuscripts to be published, after which they are sent for peer review (except for reviews, analyses and commentaries of case law, as well as reviews of books and conferences). If the manuscript is found to be thematically irrelevant to the journal, it may be rejected even in this phase without initiating the peer-review process. In the event of an objection or uncertainty, the final decision to reject the manuscript at this stage is made by the editorial team. Manuscripts that are not rejected initially are sent for peer review (double-blind review).
Once an article is deemed suitable for publication, the anonymised text is forwarded to two independent reviewers for double-blind peer review. Reviewers are selected from among domestic and international scholars whose research and academic work are closely tied to the theme of the manuscript. Reviewers undertake to adhere to the ethical principles of the journal and to all other ethical standards applicable to scientific research and scholarly publishing.
During and after the peer review process, the executive editors of the journal or the journal secretary will inform the author of the received reviews and any potential requests for revisions of the reviewed manuscript. The author will receive these notifications via email. If revisions to the manuscript are required, the file containing the version of the manuscript that needs to be revised, along with any instructions from the editor/reviewer, will be sent via email.
If the first two reviews are contradictory and both are well-argued and substantiated, the manuscript is referred to a third reviewer. If a review is not well-argued, the editorial team may choose not to accept such a review or return it for revision.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
- Structure of the manuscript,
- Contribution to the field,
- References and methodology,
- Conclusions and recommendations for further research.
Manuscripts are categorised in accordance with the Guidelines for Editing and Formatting Journals issued by the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports of the Republic of Croatia. The editorial team makes the final decision on the categorisation of manuscripts, based primarily on the reviewers' assessments.
The reviewers, upon completing the peer review, may suggest publishing the manuscript in the following manner:
- Acceptable for publication in its present form;
- Acceptable for publication subject to minor revisions as specified;
- Not acceptable for publication in its present form, but may be resubmitted following revision as specified;
- Not acceptable for publication and should be rejected.
Positively evaluated manuscripts are published in the following categories
- Original scientific manuscript – a manuscript presenting original research results and characterised by the originality of its conclusions, and a manuscript presenting previously unpublished original results of scientifically conceived and conducted research, in accordance with the highest methodological standards for scientific manuscripts;
- Preliminary scientific communication – a manuscript presenting preliminary results of ongoing research which, due to their current relevancy, should be promptly published, though not possessing a level of comprehensiveness and substantiation required of an original scientific manuscript;
- Scientific review article – a manuscript providing a thorough and extensive critical overview of a particular issue, but without significant originality of results, including an exhaustive review of literature relevant to the subject matter;
- Professional article – a manuscript that need not be based on original research, but is characterised by knowledge and experience relevant to a particular profession, and does not have scientific traits.
The peer review form can be downloaded here: Peer review form.pdf.