Stručna recenzija na prekretnici? Kritički pogled na proces recenziranja u znanstvenim časopisima iz polja humanistike u Bosni i Hercegovini

1. Uvod

U okviru složenog sustava akademskog izdavaštva, stručna ocjena, odnosno recenzija, predstavlja jedan od ključnih koraka u procesu objavljivanja znan­stvenih radova. Štaviše, neki autori naglašavaju da srž profesionalnog časopisa leži u predanosti, eti­ci i preciznosti recenziranih radova (usp. Pearson, 2023; Petrişor, 2020). Dok je u slučaju monografija recenzijski postupak nešto drugačiji, generalni pro­ces, odnosno hodogram kada je riječ o znanstvenim člancima u pravilu izgleda tako da autori/autorice šalju svoje radove znanstvenim i/ili stručnim časo­pisima, u nadi da će biti objavljeni. U slučaju zatvo­renog recenzijskog postupka, nakon što uredništvo časopisa zaprimi rukopis i ocijeni da ima potencijal da bude objavljen, upućuje ga recenzentima – etabli­ranim autoritetima u konkretnoj oblasti i temi – kako bi potvrdili ili opovrgnuli inicijalnu ocjenu urednič­kog tima ili urednika/urednice, te elaborirali svoje stručno mišljenje o konkretnom znanstvenom tekstu koji pretendira da bude objavljen. Tri su moguća is­hoda procesa recenziranja: članak može biti odbijen, može biti preporučen za objavljivanje uz određene preinake i korekcije, ili, što je vrlo rijedak slučaj, može biti prihvaćen u cijelosti i bez korekcija.

Osim što stručna recenzija ima direktan učinak na sam status članka, postupak recenziranja je iznimno važan i za status časopisa. Naime, u posljednjih petnaestak godina recenzija je postala jedan od te­meljnih kriterija u postupku validacije znanstvenih časopisa i njihovog uključivanja u komercijalne bibliografske baze podataka kao što su Scopus ili Web of Science Core Collection, a koje se sve če­šće, posebice u lokalnom akademskom kontekstu, nekritički tretiraju kao neutralan i znanstveno po­uzdan instrument mjerenja akademske izvrsnosti i vrijednosti znanstvenog rada.¹

1. Introduction

Within the complex system of academic publishing, peer review is one of the key steps in the process of publishing scientific papers. Moreover, some au­thors emphasize that the essence of a professional journal lies in the commitment, ethics and precision of peer-reviewed papers (cf. Pearson 2023; Petrişor, 2020). While the review process for monographs is somewhat different, the general procedure—or workflow—regarding scientific articles typically entails authors submitting their manuscripts to sci­entific and/or professional journals in the hope that they will be published. In the case of a closed re­view process, once the editorial board of the jour­nal receives the manuscript and determines that it has the potential to be published, it is forwarded to the reviewers—established authorities in the spe­cific field and topic—to confirm or reject the initial assessment of the editorial team or editor, and to provide a detailed expert evaluation of the scien­tific text intended for publication. There are three possible outcomes of the review process: the article may be rejected, it may be recommended for pub­lication with certain modifications and corrections, or, which is a very rare case, it may be accepted in its entirety and without corrections.

Apart from the fact that peer review has a direct impact on the status of the article itself, the review process is also extremely important for the status of the journal. Namely, in the last fifteen years, peer review has become one of the fundamental crite­ria in the process of validating scientific journals and their inclusion in commercial bibliographic databases such as Scopus or Web of Science Core Collection, which are increasingly, especially in the local academic context, uncritically treated as a neutral and scientifically reliable instrument for measuring academic excellence and the value of scientific work.¹

¹ As noted by Saša Madacki, such evaluation logic ignores the fact that in indexed journals individual members are indexed by defini­tion and that this fact should not be treated as a sufficient indicator

214

Demiragić

U svjetlu recentnih trendova koji ukazuju na ozbilj­nu krizu ukupnog sustava stručnog recenziranja u akademskim časopisima na globalnom planu, ovaj rad se bavi kompleksnom problematikom procesa recenzije fokusirajući se na ulogu i poziciju re- cenzenta/recenzentica i, općenito, postupka recen­ziranja u časopisima iz područja humanističkih znanosti u bosanskohercegovačkom akademskom kontekstu. Ne treba posebno naglašavati da je ri­ječ o veoma važnoj temi jer, s jedne strane, pozi­tivna stručna recenzija ključni je faktor u procesu objavljivanja znanstvenog rada, koji je, pak, uvjet akademskog napredovanja i statusa. S druge strane, sam postupak recenziranja jedan je od istaknutih kriterija indeksiranja časopisa u priznatim komer­cijalnim bazama.

U radu se najprije pojašnjava koncept i smisao aka­demskog recenziranja. U tom kontekstu, nudi se i osvrt na tradicionalne probleme i nedostatke su­stava zatvorenog recenzijskog postupka te na nove izazove i tzv. krizu recenzije i recenziranja o kojoj se uveliko piše posljednjih godina. Potom se uka­zuje na ključne specifičnosti bh. konteksta u ovom domenu te navode metodološke napomene vezane za istraživanje. Na osnovu analize i interpretacije podataka prikupljenih iz polustrukturiranih inter­vjua obavljenih putem elektroničke pošte s odabra­nim urednicima i urednicama znanstvenih i stručnih časopisa iz oblasti humanističkih znanosti s prosto­ra Bosne i Hercegovine, u centralnom dijelu rada nudi se prikaz situacije u BiH u svjetlu generalnih problema i izazova u sustavu akademskog recenzi­ranja. Zaključni dio rada nastoji naglasiti ključne aspekte problema recenziranja akademskih radova u polju humanističkih znanosti u BiH.

Proces recenzije kakvu danas poznajemo, barem kada je riječ o zapadnom akademskom izdavaš­tvu, nema dugu povijesnu tradiciju. Iako je, kako se navodi u nekim izvorima, časopis Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society uveo stručne re­cenzije članaka već prilikom objavljivanja prvog broja 1665. godine (usp. Lovejoy et al. 2011; Diz-

deksirani po definiciji i da se ta činjenica ne bi trebala tretirati kao dovoljan pokazatelj kvaliteta objavljenog članka. Madacki navodi znakovit podatak – da u periodu od 1900. do 2005. godine, od 38 miliona članaka iz Web of Science, njih 18 miliona nije citirano niti jedan put, preko tri miliona je citirano samo jednom, dok je samo 61 članak citiran više od 10.000 puta – na temelju kojeg zaključuje da “sam indikator gdje je nešto objavljeno ne može odgovoriti na pitanje šta je objavljeno, zašto je objavljeno i kakvog je kvaliteta, odnosno, kakvog je utjecaja imalo na naučnu zajednicu u cjelini” (2017, par. 8).

Considering the recent trends highlighting a con­siderable crisis in the overall peer review system operating within academic journals worldwide, this paper addresses the complex issues surrounding peer review, with a focus on the role and position of reviewers and, more generally, on the peer re­view procedures in journals of the humanities in the academic context of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This topic is undoubtedly of great importance because, on the one hand, positive peer review is a key factor in the process of publishing a scientific paper, which is, in turn, a requirement for academic advancement and status. On the other hand, the peer review pro­cess itself is one of the prominent criteria for index­ing journals in recognized commercial databases.

The paper first clarifies the concept and meaning of academic peer review. Within this context, con­sideration is also given to the traditional problems and shortcomings of the closed peer review process system, as well as new challenges and the so-called peer review crisis, as extensively covered in the lit­erature over the recent years. The paper then points out the key specificities of the Bosnian context in this domain, and provides methodological notes re­lated to the research. Drawing on the analysis and interpretation of data gathered from semi-structured interviews conducted via e-mail with selected edi­tors of scientific and professional journals in the field of humanities from Bosnia and Herzegovina, the central part of the paper offers an overview of the situation in B&H considering the general prob­lems and challenges in the academic peer review system. The conclusion of the paper highlights key aspects of the problem of peer review of academic works in the field of humanities in B&H.

The peer review process in its present form, at least when it comes to Western academic publishing, does not have a long historical tradition. Although, as stated in some sources, the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society introduced expert review of articles with the launch of the first issue published in 1665 (cf. Lovejoy et al. 2011; Dizdar 2019, cit. according to Petrişor, 2020: 183), and from the 18th century the peer-review process be­gan to be experimented with, it only became a stan­dard segment of scientific publishing in the second

of the quality of the published article. Madacki cites a significant fact—that in the period from 1900 to 2005, out of 38 million articles in the Web of Science, 18 million of them were not cited even once, over three million were cited only once, while only 61 articles were cited more than 10,000 times—on the basis of which he concludes that „the indicator of where something was published alone cannot answer the question of what was published, why it was published and what quality it had, that is, what impact it had on the scientific community as a whole” (2017, par. 8).

215

BOSNIACA 2025; 30: 213-233

dar 2019, nav. prema Petrişor, 2020: 183), a od 18. stoljeća se počelo eksperimentirati s recenzentskim postupkom, standardni segment znanstvenog izda­vaštva postaje tek od druge polovine 20. stoljeća (usp. Stojanovski, 2024: 28-29). Tijekom stoljeća djelovanja akademskih časopisa prije toga, odluke o objavljivanju radova bile su u pravilu diskrecio­no pravo jedne osobe – urednika konkretne publi­kacije, koji je djelovao samostalno, eventualno uz neformalne savjete i sugestije koje je dobivao od kolega (usp. Rowland, 2002: 248).

Uvođenje recenzenata kao ključnih aktera u proces donošenja odluka vezanih za objavljivanje znan­stvenih radova zasnovano je na važnim i utemelje­nim argumentima. Recenzije prije svega funkcioni­raju kao svojevrsni sustav “certificiranja”, i to u dva segmenta: “prihvaćanje u časopis ili izdavačku kuću putem recenzije certificira sam rad, a također cer- tificira i znanstvenika koji ga je proizveo” (Shatz, 2004: 1). Drugim riječima, recenzije djeluju kao su­stav kontrole kvaliteta samog rada, nastojeći da se eliminiraju, ili barem minimiziraju, greške, propusti ili loše teze i argumenti u naučnim radovima. Isto­vremeno, promatrano iz perspektive autora/autorice, recenzije djeluju kao sustav validacije i svojevrsnog garanta stručnosti akademskih djelatnika/djelatnica, jer samo recenzirani radovi omogućavaju njihovo napredovanje i odgovarajući status. U tom smislu, akademske karijere su često izgrađene ili uništene kroz proces recenzije (usp. Shatz, 2004: 2). Pored recenzenata/ica i autora/ica, u samom recenzijskom procesu, izvanredno važnu upravljačku ulogu imaju urednici/urednice časopisa, koji/e posreduju “izme­đu znanstvenika-autora i znanstvenika-recenzenta” te “donose konačnu odluku o ishodu recenzijskog postupka” (Stojanovski, 2018: 81).

Terminološki i tehnički promatrano, recenzije u širem smislu obuhvaćaju i kritičko uredničko čita­nje te inicijalnu procjenu akademskog rada, kao i ocjenu konkretnog znanstvenog djela koju provo­de recenzenti koji/e su eksperti/ekspertice u oblasti o kojoj je riječ. Jedina suštinska razlika je u tome što se anonimnost autora/autorica gotovo nikada ne može osigurati kada je riječ o čitanju i ocjeni poje­dinačnih znanstvenih radova od strane urednika/ica publikacije (usp. Shatz, 2004: 8).

Iako je čitav sustav recenzija uspostavljen s ciljem da se eliminira arbitrarnost i, u konačnici, unaprije­di kvaliteta znanstvenih radova, već dugo se govori i o problemima i izazovima u tom sustavu te mo­gućim reformama i alternativama. Problemi su do­kumentirani naročito u oblasti prirodnih i medicin­skih znanosti i odnose se na nedovoljnu pažnju koju

half of the 20th century (cf. Stojanovski 2024: 28­29). Over the centuries in which academic journals had been active before that, decisions regarding the publication of papers were typically the discretion­ary prerogative of a single individual—the editor of a specific publication, who acted independently, possibly with informal advice and suggestions re­ceived from colleagues (cf. Rowland 2002: 248). Introducing reviewers as key actors in the decision­making process related to the publication of scien­tific papers is based on important and well-founded arguments. Reviewers primarily operate as a sort of the system of certification, in two segments: “accep­tance by a journal or publishing house through re­views certifies a certain work, while at the same time certifying the academic who produced it” (Shatz, 2004: 1). In other words, reviews serve as a quality­control system for the work itself, trying to elimi­nate, or at least minimize, errors, omissions or weak theses and poor arguments in scientific papers. On the other hand, viewed from the perspective of the author, reviews act as a validation system and a kind of guarantor of the expertise of academics, because reviews function as a validation system and as a kind of guarantor of academic expertise, since only peer- reviewed papers enable scholars to advance and at­tain a certain academic status. In this sense, academ­ic careers are often made or destroyed by the process of peer review (cf. Shatz, 2004: 2). In addition to reviewers and authors, journal editors play an excep­tionally important managerial role in the peer-review process itself, acting as intermediaries “between the scientist-author and the scientist-reviewer” and they “make the final decision on the outcome of the re­view process” (Stojanovski, 2018: 81).

From both a terminological and a technical point of view, peer-review in a broader sense includes critical editorial reading and initial assessment of academic work, as well as evaluation of a specific scientific work by reviewers who are experts in the field in question. The only essential difference is that the anonymity of authors can almost never be ensured when it comes to reading and evaluating individual scientific papers by the publications’ edi­tors. (cf. Shatz, 2004: 8)

Although the entire review system was established to eliminate arbitrariness and ultimately improve the quality of scientific papers, there has long been discussion about the problems and challenges with­in this system, as well as potential reforms and al­ternatives. The problems have been documented es­pecially in the field of natural and medical sciences, and relate to the insufficient attention that review­ers pay to the papers they review, which sometimes results in major or minor errors and omissions in the published papers; the different treatment of au­thors depending on the institutions they come from

216

Demiragić

recenzenti/recenzentice posvećuju radovima koje recenziraju, što ponekad rezultira većim ili manjim greškama i propustima u objavljenim radovima; ra­zličit tretman autora/autorica s obzirom na institu­cije iz kojih dolaze (gdje se prednost daje znanstve­nim radnicima/radnicama s prestižnih institucija); otpor recenzenata prema novim i inovativnim aka­demskim radovima itd. (usp. Shatz, 2004: 2).

Naročito su rasprostranjene optužbe koje ukazuju na raznovrsne predrasude recenzenata/recenzentica, a koje, kako se navodi, često onemogućavaju da se sagleda istinska vrijednost i kvaliteta znanstvenog rada (usp. Lee et al., 2013). Praksa dvostruke anoni- mizirane recenzije, u kojoj ni autor/ica ni recenzenti ne znaju identitet ni institucionalnu afilijaciju onog drugog, donekle ublažava problem pristrasnosti, ali njene mnogostruke dimenzije često idu i izvan samog pitanja autora/autorice i identiteta i tiču se politike, ideologije, rodnih uloga, znanstvenih sta­vova itd. Ukratko, kritičari/kritičarke tvrde da, iako je dobro osmišljen, tradicionalni sustav zatvore­nog recenziranja u praksi pati od niza nedostataka. Oslanjajući se na studije Walker i Rocha da Silva (2015, prema Stojanovski, 2018: 81) i Ross-Hellau- er (2017, prema Stojanovski, 2018: 81), kao najvaž­nije nedostatke zatvorenog recenzijskog postupka, Jadranka Stojanovski navodi sljedeće: usporavanje procesa objavljivanja publikacije, skupoća recen- zijskog postupka, različite vrste pristrasnosti (poput pristrasnosti u odnosu na vrstu rada), nepouzdanost, odnosno visok stupanj neusklađenosti stajališta i komentara recenzenata o istom radu, nemogućnost otkrivanja pogrešaka i znanstvene nečestitosti, nee­tička praksa, izostanak poticaja i motivacije i rasi­panje znanja i resursa (2018: 81-83; 2024: 30).

Važno je istaknuti da je kritički pristup akademske zajednice samom sustavu recenzija više zastupljen u prirodnim i društvenim znanostima nego u huma- nistici. Svakako je zanimljivo to da se u oblastima koje se bave kompleksnim pitanjima znanja, istine, etike itd. ne posvećuje značajnija pažnja problemu funkcioniranja formalnog sustava evaluacije, vali- dacije i kriterija objavljivanja znanstvenih radova (Shatz, 2004: 8). Ipak, uočeni problemi u ovoj obla­sti u drugim znanostima su najvećim dijelom rele­vantni i za područje humanistike.

S druge strane, debata o samom konceptu i praksi recenzije, iako još uvijek nedovoljno artikulirana, ostaje prilično polarizirana: na jednoj strani su po- bornici/pobornice sustava, koji ga smatraju nepo­grješivim, “zlatnim standardom”, dok su na drugoj oni/one koji/e tvrde da je sustav već urušen, pa čak i uništen, i da su neophodne alternative (usp. Tennant & Ross-Hellauer, 2020).

(where priority is given to scientists from presti­gious institutions); the resistance of reviewers to­wards new and innovative academic papers, etc. (cf. Shatz, 2004: 2).

Particularly widespread are accusations pointing to various biases on the part of reviewers, which, as is stated, often make it impossible to recognize the true value and quality of scientific work (cf. Lee et al., 2013). The practice of double anonymous re­view, in which neither the author nor the reviewers know the identity or institutional affiliation of the other, somewhat alleviates the problem of bias, but its manifold dimensions often go beyond the ques­tion of authorship and identity and concern politics, ideology, gender roles, scientific attitudes, etc. In brief, critics argue that, although well designed, the traditional system of closed review suffers from several shortcomings in practice. Relying on the studies of Walker and Rocha da Silva (2015) and Ross-Hellauer (2017), Jadranka Stojanovski notes the following most important shortcomings of the closed peer-review process: slowing down the pub­lication process, the cost of the review process, various types of bias (such as bias in relation to the type of work), unreliability, that is, a high degree of inconsistency of the views and comments of re­viewers on the same work, the inability to detect errors and scientific dishonesty, unethical practices, lack of incentives and motivation, and waste of knowledge and resources (2018: 81-83; 2024: 30).

It is important to emphasize that the critical ap­proach of the academic community to the review system itself is more prevalent in the natural and social sciences than in the humanities. It is certainly interesting that in fields engaged in complex issues of knowledge, truth, ethics, etc., no significant at­tention is paid to the problem of the functioning of the formal system of evaluation, validation and cri­teria for publishing scientific papers (Shatz, 2004: 8). However, the problems observed in this area in other sciences are largely relevant to the field of hu­manities.

On the other hand, the debate on the concept and practice of review itself, although still insufficiently articulated, remains quite polarized: on one side are the supporters of the system, who regard it as infal­lible, the “golden standard”, while on the other side are those who claim that the system has already col­lapsed, or even destroyed, and that alternatives are necessary (cf. Tennant & Ross-Hellauer, 2020).

At the same time, although the system of closed re­views seems to be a commonplace of the academic community where everything is known, scientific insights into its functioning and its key elements are relatively limited. For the purposes of this paper, it is sufficient to mention only a few aspects of the peer review process which still need to be explored

217

BOSNIACA 2025; 30: 213-233

Istovremeno, iako se sustav zatvorenih recenzija čini kao opće mjesto akademske zajednice u kojem je sve poznato, znanstveni uvidi u njegovo funk­cioniranje i njegove ključne elemente relativno su ograničeni. Za potrebe ovog rada dovoljno je na­vesti samo nekoliko aspekata procesa recenziranja koje tek treba detaljnije rasvijetliti. Prije svega, ulo­ga urednika/urednice u odnosu na recenzente nije dovoljno razjašnjena, kao što često nisu jasni ni kriteriji ni argumenti na kojima se zasnivaju ured­ničke odluke o odbijanju ili objavljivanju akadem­skih radova. Pored toga, nisu sve dimenzije moguće povrede povjerljivosti² i pristrasnosti recenzenata dovoljno elaborirane, niti su uspostavljeni ade­kvatni mehanizmi koji će minimizirati taj problem. Neke ključne kategorije unutar sustava također nisu dovoljno precizirane, niti su adekvatno kritički sa­gledane. Tako, primjerice, nije sasvim jasno koji je to, zapravo, idealni, ili barem optimalni, profil re­cenzenta. Ko su to kolege i kolegice (eng. peers) koji/e su pogodni/e za ulogu recenzenata te šta sve pojedine osobe čini ekspertima u konkretnim obla­stima (usp. Petrişor, 2020: 186-187). Pored toga, ne postoji konsenzus niti standard o tome šta je to kva­litetna recenzija (Sizo et al., 2025). Na kraju, učinak i dodatna vrijednost recenzija nisu dovoljno istra­ženi na globalnom planu, pa ostaje uglavnom ne­jasno koji je prosječni doprinos recenzije kvaliteti objavljenih radova (usp. Tennant & Ross-Hellauer, 2020).

Posljednjih godina, međutim, dosta se govori o krizi ovog sustava, te o tendencijama koje ugroža­vaju same njegove temelje. Prije svega, bilježi se smanjena spremnost i zainteresiranost pripadnika akademske i ekspertske zajednice da čitaju i kritički evaluiraju radove koji pretendiraju na objavljivanje. Tako npr. urednik prestižnog pravnog časopisa Eu­ropean Journal of International Law svjedoči da u prosjeku svaki drugi potencijalni recenzent kojem se obrate pristane da uradi recenziju. Pored toga, kako isti urednik navodi, i kvaliteta samih recenzija i nivo detalja koji nude su često upitni, jer se recen­zenti često ne trude da ponude argumente ili detalj­nije obrazloženje za svoju ocjenu konkretnog rada. Takve recenzije u konačnici nisu od pomoći, pa se urednici obraćaju novim potencijalnim recenzenti­ma, što značajno produžava vrijeme do donošenja konačne odluke o objavljivanju akademskog rada (Weiler, 2012).

in more depth. Primarily, the role of the editor in relation to reviewers is not sufficiently clarified, as is the case with the criteria and arguments on which editorial decisions on the rejection or publication of academic papers are based. In addition, all di­mensions of possible breaches of confidentiality² and bias of reviewers have not been sufficiently elaborated, nor have adequate mechanisms been es­tablished to minimize this problem. Some key cat­egories within the system are also not sufficiently specified, nor have they been adequately critically reviewed. For example, it is not entirely clear what is the ideal, or at least optimal, profile of a reviewer. Who among the peers are suitable for the role of reviewers, and what makes a person an expert in a specific field? (cf. Petrişor, 2020: 186-187) In ad­dition, there is no consensus or standard as to what constitutes a quality review (Sizo et al., 2025). Fi­nally, the effect and added value of reviews have not been sufficiently researched on a global scale, so the average contribution of reviews to the qual­ity of published papers remains largely unclear (cf. Tennant & Ross-Hellauer, 2020).

In recent years, however, there has been a lot of talk about the crisis of this system, and about tenden­cies that threaten its very foundations. Above all, a reduced willingness and interest of members of the academic and expert community to read and critical­ly evaluate works that are intended to be published is reported. Thus, for example, the editor-in-chief of a prestigious legal journal European Journal of International Law states that on average every other potential reviewer they approach agrees to provide a peer review. In addition, as the same editor states, both the quality of the reviews themselves and the level of detail they offer are often questionable, be­cause the reviewers often do not make an effort to offer arguments or a more detailed explanation for their assessment of the specific work. In the end, such reviews prove to be of little use, so editors turn to new potential reviewers, which significantly in­creases the time until the final decision to publish an academic paper (Weiler, 2012).

If even prestigious journals face such problems, it can be reasonably assumed that in the case of other journals, the challenges of the review process are far more serious and numerous (see Petrişor, 2020: 183-187). In any case, this is a worrying global trend.³

² As Ljiljana Vučković-Dekić emphasizes: “Reviewing is a business of a confidential nature—until it is published, the data from the ma­nuscript belong only and exclusively to the author. Therefore, any misuse of knowledge obtained during peer review is a very serious ethical violation, which can also be legally sanctioned.” (2013: 77)

³ For example, the editor of an American academic journal states that, while in the recent past every third or fourth expert he contacted agreed to be a reviewer, now approximately every eighth accepts this task (cf. Flaherty, 2022).

218

Demiragić

Ako se čak i prestižni časopisi suočavaju s takvim problemima, može se s pravom pretpostaviti da su u slučaju ostalih časopisa izazovi procesa recen­ziranja daleko ozbiljniji i brojniji (vidjeti Petrişor, 2020: 183-187). U svakom slučaju, riječ je o zabri­njavajućem globalnom trendu.³

Premda je o razlozima i faktorima nezahvalno spe­kulirati, navedena kriza entuzijazma na strani samih recenzenata svakako je povezana i s promjenama u profilu i statusu akademskih djelatnika na global­nom planu. Činjenica je da je recenzentski rad u pravilu besplatan i da nema gotovo nikakav utjecaj na akademske karijere samih recenzenata. Očigled­no je da osjećaj dužnosti ili pripadnosti akademskoj zajednici više nije dovoljan motiv da se prihvati često vrlo zahtjevan zadatak recenziranja akadem­skog rada. Suočeni s egzistencijalnim pritiscima, imperativima i sve strožim kriterijima napredova­nja te vlastitim projektima i inicijativama kojima nastoje popuniti rupe i u akademskoj i u finansijskoj konstrukciji svog profesionalnog života, akademski djelatnici imaju sve manje vremena i energije za recenzentske zadatke. Njihovo rastuće odbijanje da sudjeluju u tom procesu dovodi u pitanje cjelokupni sustav, a posljedično i njihov status i napredovanje u akademskoj hijerarhiji.

Iako kriza recenzijskog procesa još uvijek nije re­zultirala kolapsom sustava, dugoročna neravnoteža između sve većih zahtjeva za validacijom akadem­skog rada i priznanja putem recenzije, s jedne stra­ne, te smanjenja raspoloživih resursa i angažmana recenzenata, s druge strane, neminovno će dovesti do ozbiljnih posljedica.

Pored prekarnog statusa i sve teže borbe za preživ­ljavanje brojnog akademskog osoblja, drugi faktor je strukturalne prirode. Velike izdavačke korporaci­je, unatoč enormnim profitima, još uvijek oklijevaju da ponude alternative ili dodatnu motivaciju⁴ recen­zentima (npr. u formi honorara). Pored toga, aka­demska izdavačka industrija na globalnom planu gotovo nekontrolirano raste, što konstantno pove­ćava potrebu za recenzijama i recenzentima.⁵ Isto­vremeno, krug raspoloživih recenzenata se ne širi odgovarajućim tempom, značajnim dijelom i zbog rodnog jaza u tom domenu. Naime, nedavna studija

³ Tako npr. urednik jednog američkog akademskog časopisa navodi da, dok je u nedavnoj prošlosti svaki treći ili četvrti ekspert kojeg je kontaktirao pristao da bude recenzent, sada na to pristaje otprilike svaki osmi (usp. Flaherty, 2022).

⁴ U nekim istraživanjima (Patel, 2014; Tite & Schroter, 2007) ukazano je na problem da se recenzentima/icama ne priznaju zasluge za nji­hov važan, zahtjevan, odgovoran i neplaćen recenzentski angažman (nav. prema Stojanovski, 2018: 83).

⁵ Procjenjuje se da od 2013. godine broj radova koje naučni časopisi zaprime raste za 6,1 posto svake godine. (Checco et al., 2021: 2; usp. Petrişor, 2020: 184)

While speculating about the reasons and factors is inadvisable, the aforementioned crisis of enthusi­asm on the part of reviewers themselves is certainly also related to changes in the profile and status of academics on a global scale. It is evident that the work of reviewers is typically unpaid and has little, if any, influence on the reviewers’ own academic careers. It is obvious that a sense of duty or belong­ing to the academic community is no longer a suf­ficient motive to accept the often very demanding task of reviewing academic work. Faced with ex­istential pressures, imperatives, and increasingly stringent criteria for advancement, as well as their own projects and initiatives aimed at filling gaps in both the academic and financial structure of their professional lives, academics have less time and energy for review tasks. Their growing refusal to participate in this process undermines the entire system, and consequently their status and advance­ment in the academic hierarchy.

Although the crisis in the review process has not yet resulted in the collapse of the system, the long­term imbalance between the increasing demands for validation of academic work and recognition through review, on the one hand, and the reduction in available resources and engagement of review­ers, on the other hand, will inevitably lead to serious consequences.

In addition to the precarious status and the increas­ingly difficult struggle for survival of a considerable number of academic staff, the second factor is of a structural nature. Large publishing corporations, despite enormous profits, are still hesitant to offer alternatives or additional motivation⁴ to review­ers (e.g. in the form of honoraria). In addition, the global academic publishing industry is expanding at an almost uncontrollable rate, which constantly increases the need for reviews and reviewers.⁵ At the same time, the pool of available reviewers is not growing at a suitable rate, in large part due to the gender gap in this field. For example, a recent study focused on journals in the field of biomedical sciences showed that women make up less than a third of the reviewers of these journals. (cf. Good­man, 2022). Research also shows that the roles of reviewers are not evenly distributed within the aca­demic community, with only 20 percent of scientific workers responsible for 94 percent of the reviewed papers (cf. Kovanis et al., 2016). This implies that the large majority of scientists in various fields do not contribute at all to the functioning of the review

219

BOSNIACA 2025; 30: 213-233

fokusirana na časopise iz domena biomedicinskih znanosti pokazala je da žene čine manje od treći­ne recenzenata tih časopisa (usp. Goodman, 2022). Istraživanja pokazuju i to da uloge recenzenata nisu ravnomjerno distribuirane unutar akademske zajed­nice, pri čemu je samo 20 posto znanstvenih dje­latnika odgovorno za 94 posto recenziranih radova (usp. Kovanis et al., 2016). To znači da ogromna većina znanstvenika/znanstvenica u različitim obla­stima uopće ne doprinosi funkcioniranju sustava recenzija. Takav debalans u angažmanu na ovom polju neminovno dovodi do fenomena koji je na­zvan zamor recenzenata (engl. reviewer fatigue), a koji podrazumijeva da akademski djelatnici odbi­jaju da prihvate recenziranje radova zbog toga što su previše zauzeti ne samo poslom i profesionalnim angažmanom općenito već i radom na drugim re­cenzijama (Breuning et al., 2015: 598).

Općenito govoreći, navedeni problemi i izazovi s kojima se suočava validacija, objavljivanje i ko­munikacija znanstvenih radova u aktualnim okol­nostima, imaju svoj odjek i u Bosni i Hercegovini. Naravno, obim i značaj krize u tom domenu nužno su proporcionalni veličini akademske i ekspertske zajednice u BiH, odnosno akademskoj izdavačkoj industriji, koja je relativno skromna.

U nastavku ovog rada fokus je stavljen na probleme u domenu recenziranja iz perspektive akademskih časopisa iz humanističkih znanosti u BiH.⁶ Takav fokus uvjetovan je praktičnim razlozima i profilom autorice ovog rada, ali i potrebom da se upravo ove znanosti uključe u širu diskusiju o kompleksnoj problematici akademskog recenziranja, s obzirom na to da je, kako je već navedeno, njihov glas u toj velikoj debati na globalnom planu prilično margi­nalan i marginaliziran u korist drugih znanosti. To, naravno, nužno ne znači da uvidi proizašli iz takvog fokusa nisu relevantni i za akademske časopise iz drugih znanstvenih disciplina u BiH, odnosno za problematiku akademske recenzije općenito.

S obzirom na njihovo djelovanje i način rada, na­vedeni časopisi su ujedno i nosioci akademske pro­dukcije znanja u polju humanistike u BiH te ključne platforme za ispunjavanje kriterija i osiguravanje napredovanja u akademskim zvanjima u ovim obla-

system. Such an imbalance in engagement in this field inevitably leads to a phenomenon called re­viewer fatigue, which implies that academic staff refuse to accept peer review duties because they are too busy not only with their work and professional engagement in general, but also with work on other reviews (Breuning et al., 2015: 598).

In general, the aforementioned problems and chal­lenges related to the validation, publication and communication of scientific works in current cir­cumstances also resonate in Bosnia and Herzegov­ina. Clearly, the extent and impact of the crisis in this domain are inevitably proportional to the size of the academic and expert community in BiH, that is, the academic publishing industry, which remains relatively modest.

In the following sections of this paper, the focus is placed on problems in the field of peer review from the perspective of academic journals in the humani­ties in Bosnia and Herzegovina.⁶ Such a focus is dictated by practical reasons and the profile of the author of this present work, but also by the need to include these sciences in wider discussion on the complex issue of academic peer review, given that, as already stated, their voice in this great debate on a global level is rather marginal and marginalized in favor of other sciences. This does not, howev­er, necessarily mean that the insights derived from such a focus are not relevant for academic journals from other scientific disciplines in BiH, that is, for the issue of academic review in general.

Considering their activities and the way they op­erate, the mentioned journals are also the bearers of academic production of knowledge in the field of humanities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and key platforms for meeting the criteria and ensuring ad­vancement in academic ranks in these fields. Name­ly, all current laws on higher education in B&H (at the level of Republic of Srpska and at the level of cantons in Federation of B&H), with some differ­ence in the level of detail, prescribe the publication of peer-reviewed academic papers in publications that are indexed in relevant international databases as the principal criterion for promotion to senior as­sociate and all academic faculty ranks.⁷

⁶ According to the available data, which are neither complete nor systematic, 28 humanities journals have been identified in Bosnia and Herzegovina that state on their websites that the articles they publish go through a double-blind peer-review process or multiple reviews. The list of journals is provided in Appendix 1.

⁷ See, for example, the Law on Higher Education of the Republic of Srpska, Art. 80–86; Law on Higher Education of Sarajevo Canton, Art. 112; Law on Higher Education of the Bosnian-Podrinje Canton, Art. 80–81; Law on Higher Education of Zenica-Doboj Canton, Art. 81–82; Law on Higher Education of the Western Herzegovina Can-

220

Demiragić

stima. Naime, svi aktualni zakoni o visokom obra­zovanju u BiH (na nivou Republike Srpske te na nivou kantona u FBiH), uz manja ili veća odstupa­nja u nivou detalja, propisuju objavljivanje recenzi­ranih akademskih radova u publikacijama koje su indeksirane u relevantnim međunarodnim bazama podataka kao ključni uvjet za imenovanje u viša sa- radnička i sva znanstveno-nastavna i nastavna aka­demska zvanja.⁷

Međutim, ni u jednom od zakona o visokom obra­zovanju u BiH recenziranje akademskih radova nije navedeno kao kriterij u procesu napredovanja. Samo u Pravilniku o minimalnim uvjetima izbora u zvanja Sveučilišta u Mostaru, recenziranje radova u znanstvenim časopisima eksplicitno je navedeno kao uvjet za napredovanje u kontekstu akademskih zvanja.⁸

Situacija u nekim susjednim državama je donekle drugačija. U Hrvatskoj je recenziranje tri, odnosno pet članaka u znanstvenim ili stručnim časopisima ili zbornicima radova predviđeno kao kriterij u po­stupku izbora u zvanje docenta, odnosno viša znan- stveno-nastavna zvanja.⁹ U Srbiji, premda nije pro­pisan kao uvjet za izbor u akademska zvanja, status recenzenta je na izvjestan način dobio na značaju i priznanju uvođenjem popisa recenzenata koji se sačinjava i objavljuje na web-stranici Nacionalnog akreditacionog tijela, a na osnovu javnog poziva.¹⁰

3. Metodološki okvir istraživanja

Cilj ovog istraživanja je bio da ispita mišljenja, iskustva i stavove odabranih urednika/urednica znanstvenih časopisa iz oblasti humanistike u BiH o samom recenzentskom postupku, suradnji s re- cenzentima/icama, kvaliteti rada recenzenata, od-

⁷ Vidjeti npr. Zakon o visokom obrazovanju Republike Srpske, čl. 80–86; Zakon o visokom obrazovanju Kantona Sarajevo, čl. 112; Zakon o visokom obrazovanju Bosansko-podrinjskog kantona, čl. 80–81; Zakon o visokom obrazovanju Zeničko-dobojskog kantona, čl. 81–82; Zakon o visokom obrazovanju Zapadnohercegovačkog kantona, čl. 75–77.

⁸ Usp. Pravilnik o minimalnim uvjetima i postupku izbora u znanstve- no-nastavna, umjetničko-nastavna i nastavna zvanja. (član 9, st. j). Pored ovog Pravilnika, i Zakon o visokom obrazovanju Kantona Sa­rajevo npr. navodi i recenziranje međunarodnih projekata ili među­narodnih naučnih radova ili monografija/knjiga na stranim jezicima, odnosno recenziju naučnih radova, knjiga i monografija (član 112, st. 3 b i c), kao neke od dodatnih kriterija za “posebno vrednovanje za dodatne oblasti prilikom izbora u akademska zvanja”, a koji će se utvrditi statutom i općim aktom visokoškolske ustanove. Statut Univerziteta u Sarajevu, u članu 227, u suštini ponavlja relevantne odredbe Zakona. Međutim, uloga recenziranja naučnih radova u izboru u akademska zvanja u okviru ovog zakona nije ni dovoljno jasna ni dovoljno promovirana kao relevantan kriterij te se, kao ta­kav, gubi među dvadesetak sličnih kriterija navedenih pod rubrikom “društveni doprinos”.

⁹ Prema Odluci o nužnim uvjetima za ocjenu nastavne i znanstve- no-stručne djelatnosti u postupku izbora u znanstvena i akademska zvanja (2017).

¹⁰ Lista je dostupna nahttps://www.nat.rs/lista-recenzenata/

However, none of the laws on higher education in B&H mentions peer review of academic papers as a criterion in the promotion process. Only in the Regulations on the minimum requirements and se­lection procedure for academic, artistic, and teach­ing faculty ranks at the University of Mostar, peer review of papers in scientific journals is explicitly mentioned as a condition for promotion in the con­text of academic ranks.⁸

The situation in some neighboring countries is somewhat different. In Croatia, reviewing three and five articles in scientific or professional journals or proceedings is stipulated as a criterion in the selec­tion process for the title of assistant professor and higher scientific and teaching titles, respectively.⁹ In Serbia, although it is not prescribed as a condi­tion for selection for academic titles, the status of reviewer has in a certain way gained importance and recognition with the introduction of a list of re­viewers, which is compiled and published on the website of the National Accreditation Body, follow­ing a public call.¹⁰

4. Methodological framework of the research

The objective of this research was to examine the opinions, experiences and viewpoints of selected editors of scientific journals in the field of humani­ties in B&H on the review process itself, coopera­tion with reviewers, the quality of reviewers’ work, that is, the quality of reviews, with a particular fo­cus on identifying the challenges they face, as well as determining potential proposals for improving the procedure and raising awareness of the impor­tance and significance of review work. It should be noted that studies focusing on the issue of peer review from the perspective of the humanities, as well as on the experiences of the editors of scientific journals in this field, are extremely rare, even on a global scale. A search of relevant academic data­bases for the purposes of this work resulted in only

ton, Art. 75–77.

221

BOSNIACA 2025; 30: 213-233

nosno kvaliteti recenzija, s posebnim fokusom na identificiranje izazova s kojima se suočavaju, kao i utvrđivanje eventualnih prijedloga za unapređenje postupka i jačanja svijesti o važnosti i značaju re- cenzentskog rada. Treba istaći da su radovi koji se fokusiraju na problematiku recenziranja iz perspek­tive humanističkih znanosti te na iskustva samih urednika/urednica znanstvenih časopisa iz te oblasti iznimno rijetki i na globalnom planu. Pretraživanje relevantnih akademskih baza za potrebe ovog rada rezultiralo je samo jednim tekstom koji ima sličan tematski i metodološki okvir, a koji je fokusiran na znatno uže pitanje preferencija urednika časopisa iz oblasti društvenih i humanističkih znanosti kada je riječ, s jedne strane, o standardnoj dvostrukoj sli­jepoj recenziji i otvorenoj recenziji, s druge strane (usp. Karhulahti & Backe, 2021).

S obzirom na cilj istraživanja i prirodu ove pro­blematike, primijenjen je kvalitativni istraživački pristup jer omogućava dublje razumijevanje ured­ničkih perspektiva i konteksta rada u akademskom izdavaštvu u BiH. Najprije je obavljen pregled i analiza dostupne literature, s posebnim fokusom na one sekundarne izvore u BiH, regionu, ali i na globalnom planu, koji se bave krizom recenzija i recenziranja u kontekstu znanstvenih radova. Po­daci u okviru primarnog istraživanja prikupljeni su korištenjem polustrukturiranih intervjua obavljenih putem elektroničke pošte¹¹ i baziranih na upitniku koji je sadržavao sedam ključnih pitanja. Pitanja su bila usmjerena na različite aspekte postupka recen­ziranja, uključujući: organizaciju i dinamiku proce­sa recenziranja, suradnju i iskustva s recenzentima (njihovu pouzdanost, učinkovitost), eventualne izazove vezane uz osiguravanje kvalitete i etičkih standarda i mogućnosti unapređenja postupka re- cenzije.¹² Istraživanje je provedeno na svrsishod­nom uzorku od osam¹³ ispitanika/ispitanica, koji/e obnašaju (ili su obnašali) funkciju urednika/ured- nice u znanstvenim časopisima iz oblasti kulturo- logije, lingvistike, filologije, filozofije, povijesti i teologije koji se objavljuju u različitim znanstvenim i kulturnim institucijama u BiH, a ujedno su i čla- novi/članice akademske zajednice u zvanju viših naučnih saradnika/saradnica ili redovnih, odnosno vanrednih profesora/profesorica. Pored obuhvaća-

one research paper that has a similar thematic and methodological framework, and which focuses on the much narrower issue of preferences of editors of journals in the field of social sciences and hu­manities when it comes, on the one hand, to stan­dard double-blind review and, on the other, to open review (cf. Karhulahti & Backe, 2021).

Given the aim of the study and the nature of this is­sue, a qualitative approach was applied, as it facili­tates a deeper insight into editorial viewpoints and the professional context within the academic pub­lishing in Bosnia and Herzegovina. First, a review and analysis of the available literature was conduct­ed, with particular focus on secondary sources in B&H, the region, and globally, addressing the crisis of peer review in the context of scientific publica­tions. For the primary research, data were gathered through semi-structured interviews conducted via e-mail¹¹ and based on a questionnaire that contained seven key questions. The questions were focused on various aspects of the review process, including organization and dynamics of the review process, cooperation and experiences with reviewers (their reliability, efficiency), possible challenges related to ensuring quality and ethical standards, and the op­tions for improving the peer review process.¹² The research was conducted on a purposive sample of eight¹³ respondents, who hold (or have held) the po­sition of editor in scientific journals in the fields of cultural studies, linguistics, philology, philosophy, history, and theology published by various scien­tific and cultural institutions in B&H, and are also members of the academic community in the title of senior research associate or full or associate profes­sor. In addition to ensuring diversity in terms of hu­manities disciplines and editorial perspectives, the sample was also selected with the aim of achiev­ing gender balance (four men and four women) and covering the largest university centers in B&H (Banja Luka, Mostar, Sarajevo, and Tuzla). Partici­pants were provided with information about the ob­jectives of the research, and their participation was voluntary, anonymous, and confidential, in accor­dance with ethical standards of scientific research. The obtained data were processed and interpreted using thematic analysis, with the aim of identify­ing patterns in the experiences of editors. Based on these insights, a brief description of the conditions and challenges of peer review process, as well as of

¹¹ The interviews were conducted in August 2025.

¹² More specifically, the topics/questions that formed the framework of the interviews were: 1. Experiences with finding and engaging reviewers; 2. Duration of the review process; 3. Key challenges in working with reviewers; 4. Quality of reviewer reports; 5. Is there a crisis of reviews and peer review?; 6. Motivating and valuing the work and contributions of reviewers; 7. Suggestions for improving the peer review system.

¹³ Ten editors were initially selected to be sent a questionnaire; howe- ver, two did not reply to the request to take part in the research.

222

Demiragić

nja raznolikosti u smislu humanističkih disciplina i uredničkih perspektiva, uzorak je odabran i s ciljem postizanja rodnog balansa (četiri muškarca i četiri žene) te pokrivanja najvećih univerzitetskih centa­ra u BiH (Banja Luka, Mostar, Sarajevo i Tuzla). Sudionicima/icama su prethodno pružene informa­cije o ciljevima istraživanja, a njihovo sudjelovanje bilo je dobrovoljno, anonimno i povjerljivo, u skla­du s etičkim standardima znanstvenog istraživanja. Dobiveni podaci su obrađeni i interpretirani temat­skom analizom, s ciljem prepoznavanja obrazaca u iskustvima urednika/urednica, na temelju kojih se u nastavku nudi kraći prikaz uvjeta u kojima se odvija postupak recenziranja u znanstvenim časopisima i izazova, ali i općeg tretmana recenzenata i statusa recenzije u BiH.

Ograničenja ovog istraživanja su uglavnom karak­teristična za slične studije zasnovane na intervjui­ma, među kojima se ističu moguća subjektivnost su­govornika i dobiveni nalazi ne mogu se u potpunosti generalizirati. Ipak, gdje god je to bilo moguće, ta­kvi uvidi su dodatno potkrijepljeni nalazima drugih studija i analiza, komparativnim rješenjima iz dru­gih zemalja te relevantnim informacijama koje se tiču struktura i uvjeta znanstvene produkcije u BiH.

5. Recenzija u bosanskohercegovačkom kontekstu: rezultati istraživanja

S obzirom na višestruki značaj recenziranih znan­stvenih i stručnih časopisa u BiH, problemi u njego­vom operativnom radu zahtijevaju posebnu pažnju. Perspektiva urednika i urednica nekih od časopisa iz oblasti društvenih i humanističkih znanosti u BiH ukazuje na to da problemi u domenu recenziranja s kojima se suočavaju u određenoj mjeri korespondi­raju s onima koji su već identificirani na globalnom planu, ali otkriva i niz izazova koji su uvjetovani specifičnim kontekstom BiH.

Kada je riječ o osiguravanju recenzija za akadem­ske radove u bh. kontekstu, na temelju iskustava urednica i urednika iz BiH može se utvrditi da je proces pronalaženja i angažiranja recenzenata i re- cenzentica relativno težak. Oni koji vode precizniju statistiku u tom smislu navode da u prosjeku sva­ki drugi kontaktirani ekspert/ekspertica pristane da bude recenzent/ica. Relativno slab odaziv članova/ članica akademske zajednice da sudjeluju u postup­ku recenzije jedna od urednica povezuje s općim uvjetima rada unutar akademske zajednice u BiH. Prema njenim riječima:

the general treatment of reviewers and the status of peer review in Bosnia and Herzegovina, is offered below.

This study’s limitations are typical of comparable interview-based studies, notably the possible sub­jectivity of the participants and the limited gener­alizability of the results. However, wherever possi­ble, such insights are additionally supported by the findings of other studies and analyses, comparative examples from other countries, and relevant infor­mation regarding the structures and conditions of scientific production in B&H.

4. Peer review in Bosnian-Herzegovinian context: research results

In view of the manifold importance of peer-re­viewed scientific and professional journals in BiH, problems in their functioning require particular at­tention. Perspectives of editors of selected journals in the field of social sciences and humanities in B&H indicate that the problems in the area of peer review they face correspond to some extent with those already identified globally, but also reveal a range of challenges shaped by the specific context of B&H.

When it comes to ensuring peer review for aca­demic papers in the B&H context, based on the ex­periences of editors from B&H, one can conclude that the process of finding and engaging reviewers is relatively difficult. Those who keep a more pre­cise statistics in this regard report that, on average, every second expert contacted agrees to be a re­viewer. One of the editors links the relatively weak response of members of the academic community to participate in the review process to the general working conditions within the academic community in B&H. As she states:

“In the academic community, which is exposed to bureaucratization, pressure to publish as much as possible regardless of the stage and completeness of the research, and the formal recognition and evaluation of only certain forms of scholarly activity (in a system that often recognizes neither editorial nor peer re­view work, as is the case at least in the Sarajevo Canton), and expectation that journals should be indexed rather than that their content should be improved, in a community, thus, deprived of the right to develop as a genuine community rather than as an administrative category, the work of editing journals and reviewing manu­scripts has been reduced to a mere formality. Only with great struggle can it be maintained as a real value to be nurtured. In such a system,

223

BOSNIACA 2025; 30: 213-233

“u akademskoj zajednici koja je izložena bi- rokratizaciji, pritisku da se objavljuje što je moguće više bez obzira na zrelost i dovršenost istraživanja, formalnom priznavanju i vredno­vanju samo nekih oblika naučne djelatnosti (u sistemu koji često ne prepoznaje ni urednički ni recenzentski rad, kao što je to slučaj barem u Kantonu Sarajevo) i očekivanju da se časopisi indeksiraju, a ne da se njihov sadržaj poboljša­va, u zajednici, dakle, kojoj je oduzeto pravo da se gradi kao stvarna zajednica a ne kao admini­strativna kategorija, posao uređivanja časopisa i recenziranja radova sveden je na formalnost koju treba ispuniti, i samo se teškom mukom može održati kao stvarna vrijednost koju treba njegovati. U takvom sistemu je teško naći re­cenzente, jer svi su pod pritiskom da objavljuju i niko nema vremena da čita neobjavljene tek­stove, posebno ako im taj trud neće biti formal­no prepoznat.”

Nadalje, nekoliko urednika/urednica je istaknulo da na spremnost znanstvenika/ica da sudjeluju u pro­cesu recenziranja, čini se, u određenoj mjeri utječu i faktori kakvi su spol i akademski status. Iz rodne perspektive promatrano, žene u prosjeku češće pri­staju sudjelovati u postupku recenziranja, dok su, promatrano kroz akademski status, članovi/članice akademskog osoblja nižih zvanja skloniji prihva­ćanju recenzentskih zadataka. Redovni profesori/ profesorice, prema iskustvu većine intervjuiranih urednika/urednica, znatno rjeđe prihvaćaju da budu recenzenti/ce, iako su, kako navodi jedan urednik, upravo oni “po svom naučnom znanju i iskustvu najkompetentniji da napišu recenziju”.

Prema mišljenju nekoliko urednika i urednica, činje­nica da se u većini susjednih država govore među­sobno razumljivi jezici može se smatrati prednošću u procesu identifikacije potencijalnih recenzenata i recenzentica. Neki od intervjuiranih urednika/ured- nica navode pozitivna iskustva upravo s kolegama/ kolegicama iz Hrvatske, odnosno Srbije, koji/e gotovo u pravilu prihvataju da recenziraju članke. To se dobrim dijelom vjerovatno može pripisati i uvrštavanju recenziranja naučnih radova među ek- splicitne kriterije za izbor u akademska zvanja, kon­kretno u Hrvatskoj.

S druge strane, iskustva s kolegama/kolegicama iz zemalja izvan našeg regiona nisu tako pozitivna. Prema statistici koju navodi jedan od intervjuiranih urednika, tek 20 posto molbi upućenih potencijalnim recenzentima u ostatku Evrope i svijeta ima pozitivan ishod. Jedna od intervjuiranih urednica navodi da se veoma rijetko i teško odlučuje da recenzente/recen-

it is hard to find reviewers, as everyone is under pressure to publish and no one has time to read unpublished manuscripts, especially if such ef­forts will not be formally recognized.”

Furthermore, several editors pointed out that fac­tors such as gender and academic status seem to influence, to some extent, scientists’ willingness to participate in the peer review process. From a gen­der perspective, women are on average more likely to agree to participate in the review process, while from an academic perspective, lower-ranking aca­demic staff are more likely to accept review assign­ments. Full professors, according to the experience of most of the editors interviewed, are significantly less likely to accept review assignments, although, as one editor states, they are “the most competent to write a review based on their scientific knowledge and experience.”

Several editors pointed out that the fact that mutually intelligible languages are spoken in the neighbour­ing countries can be an advantage when identifying potential reviewers. Some of the interviewed editors mention positive experiences with colleagues from Croatia and Serbia, who almost always accept to re­view papers. This can probably be largely attributed to the inclusion of peer review of scientific papers among the explicit criteria for appointment to aca­demic posts, specifically in Croatia.

On the other hand, experiences with colleagues from countries outside our region are not so posi­tive. According to the statistics cited by one of the interviewed editors, only 20 percent of requests sent to potential reviewers in the rest of Europe and the world have a positive outcome. One of the editors interviewed states that “it is very rare and difficult [for her] to decide to seek reviewers from the wider international scientific community, even for contri­butions in English, due to the different methodolog­ical and theoretical culture” which, as she assumes, would not show sufficient sensitivity to recognize the relevance of local topics.

The weaker response rate of reviewers outside the borders of our region should undoubtedly be treat­ed as a significant problem because, among other things, in the opinion of the interviewed editors, the region of the former Yugoslavia is too small for certain specific scientific fields and specific re­search topics. For a number of topics, there are only a few relevant authorities in the entire region, and in such cases, it is extremely difficult to preserve the anonymity of both the authors and reviewers in the context of double-blind peer review, since they will likely know each other very well. Therefore, as some editors point out, some articles from specific, narrower disciplines end up not being published due to the inability to provide adequate reviews.

224

Demiragić

zentice traži u široj međunarodnoj znanstvenoj za­jednici, čak i za priloge na engleskom jeziku, a zbog “drugačije metodološke i teorijske kulture” koja, kako pretpostavlja, ne bi pokazala dovoljan senzibili­tet za prepoznavanje relevantnosti lokalnih tema.

Slabiji odziv recenzenata/recenzentica izvan grani­ca naše regije bez dileme treba tretirati kao značajan problem jer, pored ostalog, po mišljenju intervjuira­nih urednika i urednica, prostor nekadašnje Jugosla­vije je premali za određene specifične znanstvene oblasti, odnosno teme. Za jedan broj tema postoji samo nekoliko relevantnih autoriteta u cijelom re- gionu i u takvim slučajevima je iznimno teško sa­čuvati anonimnost i autora i recenzenata u kontek­stu dvostruke slijepe recenzije, budući da se oni po prirodi stvari jako dobro poznaju. Stoga se dešava, kako neki urednici i urednice ističu, da pojedini pri­lozi iz specifičnih, užih disciplina, ne budu objav­ljeni usljed nemogućnosti osiguravanja adekvatnih recenzija.

Gotovo svi intervjuirani urednici/urednice navode mjesec dana kao rok za recenziranje članaka. Samo u jednom slučaju taj je rok nešto kraći – dvije do tri sedmice. Pored toga, po prirodi stvari, rok za konač­nu ocjenu nakon dorade članka je u pravilu znatno kraći – sedam do deset dana. Imajući u vidu da au- tori/autorice u pravilu imaju dodatnih nekoliko sed­mica do mjesec dana da dorade tekst nakon što do­biju komentare recenzenata/recenzentica, prosječni optimalni rok za recenziranje znanstvenih članaka iz polja humanistike u BiH, barem prema svjedoče­njima intervjuiranih urednika/urednica, je oko dva i po do tri mjeseca. No recenziranje u bh. kontekstu često podrazumijeva poslovanje sa stalnim, manjim ili većim, prolongiranjem rokova. Jedan od uredni­ka navodi ekstremni primjer u kojima je standardni rok za recenziranje od jednog mjeseca bio produžen na čitavu godinu.

Kvaliteta recenzija je dodatni izazov s kojim se urednici i urednice akademskih časopisa u BiH su­sreću. Unatoč izmjenama recenzentskih obrazaca, kojima se recenzenti nastoje dodatno angažirati, još uvijek su relativno česte pozitivne recenzije u ko­jima su sve rubrike označene s “DA”, bez ikakvog obrazloženja ili argumentacije. U takvim slučajevi­ma urednici i urednice su prinuđeni da traže nove eksperte/ekspertice, što dodatno odugovlači i kom­plicira sam proces recenziranja.

1. Duration of the review process

Almost all interviewed editors report that the dead­line for reviewing articles is set to one month. Only in one case is this deadline somewhat shorter—two to three weeks. In addition, and understandably, the deadline for final evaluation after revision of the ar­ticle is generally much shorter—seven to ten days. Bearing in mind that the authors usually have an ad­ditional few weeks to a month to revise the paper af­ter receiving the reviewers’ comments, the average optimal deadline for reviewing scientific articles in the field of humanities in B&H, at least according to the testimonies of the interviewed editors, is about two and a half to three months. However, peer review in the B&H context often implies constant, minor or major, extension of deadlines. One of the editors cites an extreme example where the standard review pe­riod of one month was extended to a whole year.

The quality of reviews is an additional challenge that editors of academic journals in Bosnia and Herze­govina face. Despite the changes in the review forms, which aim at engaging the reviewers further, posi­tive reviews in which all sections are marked with “YES”, without any explanation or argumentation, are still relatively frequent. In such cases, editors are forced to look for new reviewers, which further de­lays and complicates the review process itself.

In addition, there is a certain difference in the ap­proach of the reviewers, depending on the academic community they come from. Namely, the majority of editors point out that the largest number of re­views they receive are mostly of satisfactory qual­ity. However, as one of the interviewed editors points out, the reviews that come from more devel­oped academic environments, primarily from some university centers from Croatia, “are as a rule me­ticulous and analytically in-depth.”

The way in which individual editors sometimes treat potential and already engaged reviewers is also re­ported to be part of the problem. Some of the inter­viewed editors speak about this based on their expe­rience as reviewers. Namely, the articles submitted to them for review sometimes, as they point out, do not meet even elementary scientific criteria. In such cases, in their opinion, the editors have clearly not fulfilled their key role as the first filter, or guarantor of minimum academic standards and quality, which can be attributed to editorial superficiality and neg­ligence. The second, much more serious problem pointed out by two interviewees is the practice in which their expert opinion as reviewers was almost completely ignored, and the papers in question, de­spite serious objections, and even an unequivocal

225

BOSNIACA 2025; 30: 213-233

Pored toga, uočava se i stanovita razlika u pristu­pu recenzenata, zavisno od akademske zajednice iz koje dolaze. Naime, većina urednika/urednica ističe da je najveći broj recenzija koje dobiju uglavnom zadovoljavajućeg kvaliteta. Ipak, kako ističe jedan od intervjuiranih urednika, recenzije koje pristižu iz razvijenijih akademskih sredina, u prvom redu ne­kih sveučilišnih centara iz Hrvatske, “su u pravilu minuciozne i analitički produbljene”.

Način na koji pojedini urednici/urednice pone­kad tretiraju potencijalne, ali i već angažirane re- cenzente/recenzentice također je naveden kao dio problema. Neki od intervjuiranih urednika/uredni- ca o tome govore na osnovu njihovih iskustava u svojstvu recenzenata. Naime, članci koji im se do­stavljaju na recenziranje ponekad, kako ističu, ne ispunjavaju ni elementarne znanstvene kriterije. U takvim slučajevima, po njihovom sudu, urednici/ urednice očigledno nisu obavili svoju ključnu ulo­gu prvog filtera, odnosno garanta minimuma aka­demskog standarda i kvaliteta te se mogu optužiti za uredničku površnost i nemar. Drugi, znatno oz­biljniji problem na koji su ukazala dva sugovornika, jeste praksa u kojoj se njihovo stručno mišljenje kao recenzenta/recenzentice gotovo potpuno ignoriralo te su predmetni radovi, unatoč ozbiljnim primjedba­ma, pa i nedvosmislenom negativnom sudu i ocjeni, bili objavljeni gotovo bez ikakvih korekcija. Takva negativna iskustva dodatno demotiviraju potenci­jalne recenzente/recenzentice, dok takve uredničke prakse nanose veliku štetu ne samo časopisima već i ugledu akademske zajednice u cjelini.

Još jedan bitan problem u ovom domenu direktno je vezan za same autore/autorice a koji/e upućuju radove na objavljivanje u znanstvenim časopisima. Unatoč višegodišnjoj praksi akademskih recenzi­ja i recenziranja u BiH, još uvijek se dešava da je “autore i autorice... teško uvjeriti da recenzentske primjedbe nisu napad na njihovu ličnost, posebno ako im se žuri da tekst objave zbog nekog admini­strativnog roka”. Prema iskustvu jedne od intervju­iranih urednica, autori i autorice uglavnom odustaju u slučajevima kada recenzenti sugeriraju ozbiljni­je intervencije, pravdajući takav stav nedostatkom vremena da obave potrebne dopune i korekcije. Sve to ukazuje na još uvijek nedovoljno razvijenu akademsku kulturu, u kojoj se i dalje uglavnom teži ispunjavanju formalnih kriterija za napredovanje, a ne unapređenju kvaliteta znanstvenog rada i širenju horizonata znanja.

negative judgment and assessment, were published almost without any corrections. Such negative ex­periences further demotivate potential reviewers, while such editorial practices cause great damage not only to journals but also to the reputation of the academic community as a whole.

Another important problem in this domain is di­rectly related to the authors who submit papers for publication in scientific journals. Despite years of practice of academic review and peer review in B&H, it still happens that “authors (...) are diffi­cult to convince that reviewer remarks are not an attack on their personality, especially if they are in a hurry to publish the text due to an administrative deadline.” According to the experience of one of the interviewed editors, authors generally give up in cases where reviewers suggest more serious in­terventions, justifying such an attitude by the lack of time to make the necessary additions and correc­tions. All this points to a still insufficiently devel­oped academic culture, in which the main focus is still on fulfilling formal criteria for advancement, rather than improving the quality of scientific work and expanding the horizons of knowledge.

The answers of the interviewed editors provide a very broad picture and a whole range of perspec­tives when it comes to diagnosing a possible cri­sis of scientific peer review in B&H. None of the interviewees state that the publication of scientific journals in B&H takes place in optimal conditions and as a rule they cite several challenges they face. Only one editor explicitly states that, in her experi­ence, there is no crisis and trends of weaker interest in reviewing scientific papers.

On the other hand, only two of the seven remain­ing editors interviewed see the crisis on the side of the reviewers themselves. In fact, most of the in­terviewees speak in this context of a much broader crisis, whether it is about the resources and material preconditions on the side of the scientific journals themselves, the hyperproduction of scientific jour­nals and papers that does not correspond to real needs and capacities, or the general conditions and current level of development of the epistemological community in B&H. In this sense, it can be argued that the potential crisis of review is inseparable from the unfavorable general conditions of scientific ac­tivity in the B&H context.

The vast majority of the editors interviewed agree that the work of reviewers in the current circum­stances in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not adequate-

226

Demiragić

Odgovori intervjuiranih urednika/urednica daju ve­oma široku sliku i čitav spektar perspektiva kada je riječ o dijagnosticiranju moguće krize znanstvenog recenziranja u BiH. Nijedan od sugovornika/sugo- vornica ne navodi da se objavljivanje znanstvenih časopisa u BiH odvija u optimalnim uvjetima i u pravilu ističu niz izazova s kojima se suočavaju. Samo jedna urednica eksplicitno iznosi stav da se, prema njenom iskustvu, ne može govoriti o krizi i trendovima slabije zainteresiranosti za recenziranje znanstvenih radova.

S druge strane, samo dva od sedam preostalih inter­vjuiranih urednika/urednica krizu vide na strani sa­mih recenzenata/recenzentica. Većina sugovornika/ sugovornica, zapravo, u ovom kontekstu govori o znatno široj krizi, bilo da je riječ o resursima i ma­terijalnim pretpostavkama samih znanstvenih časo­pisa, hiperprodukciji znanstvenih časopisa i radova koja ne odgovara realnim potrebama i mogućnosti­ma, ili općim uvjetima i aktualnom stupnju razvo­ja epistemološke zajednice u BiH. U tom smislu, može se ustvrditi da je eventualna kriza recenziranja neodvojiva od uglavnom nepovoljnih općih uvjeta znanstvenog djelovanja u bh. kontekstu.

Izrazita većina intervjuiranih urednika/urednica sla­žu se da rad recenzenata u aktualnim okolnostima u BiH nije na adekvatan način valoriziran. Samo jedan urednik smatra da bi akademska solidarnost i svojevrsno priznanje za ekspertizu u određenoj znanstvenoj oblasti koje status recenzenta/ice po­drazumijeva trebalo da budu dovoljna motivacija za recenziranje radova. Također, jedan urednik ističe da se na to pitanje ne može jednoznačno odgovoriti, s obzirom na to da su pojedini univerziteti, poput Sveučilišta u Mostaru, recenziranje znanstvenih ra­dova utvrdili kao jedan od uvjeta za napredovanje u znanstveno-nastavnim zvanjima. No, kao što je već navedeno, to su još uvijek izolirani primjeri. Većina sugovornika/sugovornica je mišljenja da recenzent- ski rad u bh. kontekstu nije adekvatno vrednovan, odnosno da je, prema riječima jedne intervjuirane urednice, riječ o “gotovo dobrotvornom volonter­skom radu koji je gotovo nevidljiv”.

ly valued. Only one editor believes that academic solidarity and a kind of recognition for expertise in a particular scientific field that the status of a re­viewer implies should be a sufficient motivation for reviewing papers. One editor also points out that this question cannot be answered unambiguously, given that some universities, such as the University of Mostar, have established the review of scientific papers as one of the conditions for advancement in scientific and teaching positions. However, as al­ready mentioned, these are still isolated examples. Most of the interviewees are of the opinion that the work of a reviewer in the context of Bosna and Her­zegovina is not adequately valued, or that, in the words of one of the interviewed editors, it is “almost charitable volunteer work that is almost invisible.”

When it comes to proposals for reform on a global level, one can distinguish between those that seek to reform the existing system—by motivating re­viewers, expanding the circle of reviewers, etc., and those that seek to supplement or replace it with alternative models of scientific validation. Such al­ternative models include, for example, open peer review, in which the identity of both authors and reviewers is not only public, but the reviews them­selves are also transparently published¹⁴; post-pub­lication review, or reviews before submission to a journal; or less restrictive forms of open publishing in which papers are published on online platforms, after which the relevance, innovation and signifi­cance of the paper itself are determined by readers, specifically, the wider scientific community (it is important to note that in the latter case there is a risk of an excessive number of published papers that are difficult to track, which would make it difficult to identify those that are truly worthy of academic attention); the use of artificial intelligence as an aid in the review process, especially when it comes to quantitative studies and statistical presentations; use of commercial companies that provide indepen­dent reviews; and interactive, collaborative review processes, in which editors and reviewers use digi­tal tools to discuss and jointly make a decision on the publication of a specific paper (cf. Horbach & Halffman, 2018).

¹⁴ Open review includes different levels of transparency of the review process and different elements, from the publication of manuscripts, the identity of reviewers, as well as the reviews themselves, throu­gh the possibility of community participation in the review process, to the introduction of the possibility of commenting on published works. According to the proponents of this model, open peer review brings a whole range of advantages, such as speeding up the proce­ss, easier identification of academic dishonesty and plagiarism, and improvement and expansion of scientific discussion (cf. Stojanovski, 2024: 31). See more in Stojanovski (2018: 83-87).

227

BOSNIACA 2025; 30: 213-233

Kada je riječ o prijedlozima reforme na globalnom planu, razlikujemo one koji nastoje reformirati po­stojeći sustav – motivirati recenzente/recenzentice, proširiti krug recenzenata itd. i one koji ga nasto­je dopuniti ili zamijeniti alternativnim modelima znanstvene validacije. Takvi alternativni modeli su npr. otvorene recenzije (engl. open peer review), u kojem ne samo da je identitet i autora/autorice i recenzenata javan već se i same recenzije transpa- rentno objavljuju;¹⁴ recenziranje nakon objavlji­vanja, ili recenzije prije slanja u časopis; ili manje restriktivne forme otvorenog objavljivanja u kojima se radovi objavljuju na online platformama, nakon čega relevantnost, inovativnost i značaj samog rada utvrđuju čitatelji/čitateljice, odnosno šira znanstve­na zajednica (bitno je istaknuti da u ovom potonjem slučaju postoji rizik od prevelikog broja objavljenih radova koje je teško pratiti i identificirati one koji su zaista vrijedni akademske pozornosti); upotreba vještačke inteligencije kao pomoći u procesu re­cenziranja, naročito kada je riječ o kvantitativnim studijama i statističkim prikazima; korištenje ko­mercijalnih kompanija koje osiguravaju nezavisne recenzije; te interaktivni, kolaborativni procesi re­cenziranja, u kojima urednici/urednice i recenzenti/ recenzentice koriste digitalne alate kako bi disku­tirali i zajednički donijeli odluku o objavljivanju konkretnog rada (usp. Horbach & Halffman, 2018). Sve su glasniji i oni koji sugeriraju da se restriktiv­na praksa recenziranja treba potpuno napustiti. No u tom slučaju se nužno nameće pitanje kako tretirati akademske radove koji su objavljeni bez recenzije. Neki autori sugeriraju svojevrsnu evaluaciju nakon objavljivanja, u smislu da se procjenjuje odjek i utje­caj koji je konkretno djelo imalo u određenoj oblasti, odnosno zajednici (usp. Shatz, 2004, poglavlje 5).

Ipak, iako je korištenje ovih novih metoda recen­zije sve više rasprostranjeno, njihovi efekti u široj znanstvenoj zajednici tek treba da budu sistematski evaluirani (usp. Hellauer & Horbach, 2024). S dru­ge strane, navedene promjene u tehnologiji recen­ziranja koje se već primjenjuju u nekim časopisima

¹⁴ Otvorena recenzija može podrazumijevati različite razine transpa- rentnosti recenzentskog procesa i različite elemente, od objavljivanja rukopisa, identiteta recenzenata, kao i samih recenzija, preko moguć­nosti sudjelovanja zajednice u recenzijskom postupku, do uvođenja mogućnosti komentiranja objavljenih radova. Prema zagovornicima ovog modela, otvorena recenzija donosi čitav niz prednosti, kakve su ubrzavanje procesa, lakše utvrđivanje akademske nečestitosti i plagijarizma te unapređenje i proširivanje znanstvene diskusije (usp. Stojanovski, 2024: 31). O otvorenom recenzentskom postupku vi­djeti više u Stojanovski (2018: 83-87).

There are also increasingly vocal proponents of the idea that the restrictive practice of peer review should be abandoned altogether. But in that case, the question of how to treat academic papers that have been published without peer review neces­sarily arises. Some authors suggest a kind of post­publication evaluation, in the sense of assessing the impact and influence that a specific work has had in a particular field or community (cf. Shatz, 2004, Ch. 5).

Although these new peer review methods are in­creasingly used, their effects in the wider scientific community have yet to be systematically evaluated (cf. Hellauer & Horbach, 2024). On the other hand, the mentioned changes in peer-review technology, which are already applied in some journals and publishing houses, have intensified old questions concerning the role and function of peer-reviews in scientific journals: should reviewers also evaluate the relevance, impact, and potential usefulness of a specific work for other scientists and researchers, or should they limit themselves only to the evalua­tion of consistency and methodological rigour (cf. Horbach & Halffman, 2018: 11). The trend of open science and a less restrictive approach to the publi­cation of scientific and professional papers certainly suggests this latter approach.

It is important to point out that there is also a no­ticeable difference in innovative approaches to the review process between the natural sciences, on the one hand, and the social sciences and humanities, on the other, with the latter remaining mostly closed to such innovations for the time being. Therefore, calls for the opening of the humanities according towards new models and technologies for the validation of scientific research work, namely, for the introduc­tion of open peer review in the context of “open humanities” (Knochelmann, 2019), are appearing with increasing frequency. At the same time, there is growing awareness of the specificity of research in the humanities, and the multidimensional nature of scientific works in that field, which makes them less receptive and more complex from the perspective of innovating the review process. Indeed, „the para­digms and methods (…) in the humanities (…) focus more on subjectivity and perspectivity than the ob­jectivity, reproducibility, replicability, and generaliz­ability” (Arthur & Hearn, 2021: 829) of other sci­ences, which makes the discussion about the advan­tages of open science significantly less relevant from the perspective of the humanities. Accordingly, the possible opening of the peer review process proba­bly has less potential and less effect on resolving the overall peer review crisis in the humanities than in some other sciences. This is also supported by avail­able research from other countries, which suggests that editors of scientific journals in the humanities

228

Demiragić

i izdavačkim kućama intenzivirale su stara pitanja koja se tiču uloge i funkcije recenzija u znanstvenim časopisima: da li bi recenzenti trebalo da ocjenjuju i relevantnost, utjecaj i potencijalnu korisnost konkret­nog rada za druge znanstvenike i istraživače, ili bi trebalo da se zadrže samo na ocjeni konzistentnosti i metodološke preciznosti (usp. Horbach & Halffman, 2018: 11). Trend otvorene znanosti i manje restrik­tivnog pristupa objavljivanju znanstvenih i stručnih radova svakako sugerira ovaj potonji pristup recen­ziranju.

Bitno je istaknuti i to da je primjetna i razlika u ino­vativnim pristupima procesu recenziranja između prirodnih znanosti s jedne, i društvenih i humanistič­kih znanosti, s druge strane, pri čemu ove potonje za sada uglavnom ostaju zatvorene za takve inovacije. Stoga se sve češće pojavljuju pozivi za otvaranje hu­manističkih znanosti prema novim modelima i teh­nologijama validacije znanstvenoistraživačkog rada, odnosno za uvođenje otvorene recenzije u kontekstu “otvorene humanistike” (Knochelmann, 2019). Isto­vremeno, raste svijest i o specifičnosti istraživanja u humanističkim znanostima, te višedimenzionalnoj prirodi znanstvenih radova u toj oblasti, što ih čini manje prijemčivim i kompleksnijim iz perspektive inoviranja procesa recenzije. Zaista, za razliku od prirodnih ili tehničkih znanosti, “paradigme i meto­de (...) humanističkih znanosti (…) fokusiraju se više na subjektivnost i perspektivu, nego na objektivnost, reproduktibilnost, replikabilnost i mogućnost gene­ralizacije” (Arthur & Hearn, 2021: 829) ostalih zna­nosti, što raspravu o prednostima otvorene znanosti čini znatno manje relevantnom iz perspektive huma- nistike. U skladu s tim, i moguće otvaranje procesa recenzije ima vjerovatno manje potencijala i manje efekta na rješavanje ukupne krize recenziranja u hu- manistici u odnosu na neke druge znanosti. O tome govore i dostupna istraživanja iz drugih zemalja, koja sugeriraju da urednici znanstvenih časopisa iz oblasti humanističkih znanosti i dalje preferiraju standardnu, dvostruko slijepu recenziju, smatrajući je višestruko superiornom u odnosu na neke nove metode recenzi­ranja (Karhulahti & Backe, 2021).

Na kraju, važno je istaknuti da većina prijedloga reforme sustava recenziranja zadržava značaj uloge recenzenata/recenzentica, što je naročito relevantno za humanističke znanosti. S tim u vezi, i kriza recen­zije, u mjeri u kojoj se može svesti na taj krucijalni ljudski faktor, zahtijeva posebne mehanizme koji bi motivirali veći broj znanstvenika da sudjeluju u procesu recenziranja, ali i unaprijedili kvalitete i po­uzdanost samih recenzija u uvjetima rastuće potrebe za takvim uslugama u akademskom izdavaštvu na globalnoj razini.

still prefer standard, double-blind peer review, con­sidering it to be many times superior to some new peer review methods (Karhulahti & Backe, 2021). Finally, it is important to point out that most propos­als for reforming the peer review system retain the importance of the role of reviewers, which is par­ticularly relevant for the humanities. In this regard, the peer review crisis, to the extent that it can be re­duced to this crucial human factor, requires specific mechanisms that would not only motivate a greater number of scientists to participate in the peer review process, but also improve the quality and reliabil­ity of the reviews themselves in the context of the growing need for such services in academic pub­lishing on a global level.

Opportunities to improve practice in this area in B&H should first be sought within the institutional and structural context. Experiences from Croatia, including the experiences of the interviewed editors of academic journals from Bosnia and Herzegovina with reviewers from Croatia, indicate that legisla­tion that would prescribe the review of scientific papers as an explicit condition for advancement in terms of academic positions can change the attitude towards peer review and the quality and seriousness of the reviews themselves. Another example from the region—the certified lists of reviewers in Serbia, which are compiled on the basis of a public call and a set of predefined criteria—certainly has positive elements and could also be considered in the B&H context as well. On the other hand, the experienc­es of some of the interviewed editors suggest that, given the specificities of the academic and scien­tific community in B&H, flexibility and freedom of choice on the part of editorial boards should still be favored, rather than additional bureaucratization of the entire process in the form of closed lists of re­viewers, especially considering that in the current conditions, qualifications and expertise are mostly evident and easily verifiable.

In the context of the continuous devaluation of sci­entific work in B&H, it would certainly be worth considering additional ways in which reviewers could be motivated to perform peer review and write reviews of better quality. This additional mo­tivation, as suggested by some of the interviewed editors, could include financial compensation. However, it is important to point out that, according to relevant international research, more professional recognition for their work is a key factor that could motivate scientists to accept the role of reviewers more often (cf. Flaherty, 2022). As additional ways of professional recognition of the work of review-

229

BOSNIACA 2025; 30: 213-233

Prostor za unapređenje prakse u BiH u ovoj oblasti prije svega treba tražiti u domenu institucionalnih i strukturalnih uvjeta. Iskustva iz Hrvatske, pa i isku­stva intervjuiranih urednika/urednica akademskih časopisa iz BiH s recenzentima i recenzenticama iz Hrvatske, ukazuju na to da zakonska regulativa koja bi recenziranje znanstvenih radova propisala kao eksplicitni uvjet za izbor u akademska zvanja može promijeniti i odnos prema recenziranju i kvalitete i ozbiljnost samih recenzija. Drugi primjer iz regio- na, kakve su certificirane liste recenzenata u Srbiji, koje se sačinjavaju na osnovu javnog poziva i niza unaprijed utvrđenih kriterija, svakako ima pozitivne elemente i može se razmotriti i u bh. kontekstu. S druge strane, iskustva nekih od intervjuiranih ured­nika i urednica sugeriraju da bi, s obzirom na spe­cifičnosti akademske i znanstvene zajednice u BiH, ipak trebalo favorizirati fleksibilnost i slobodu izbo­ra na strani redakcija, a ne dodatnu birokratizaciju cijelog procesa u vidu zatvorenih lista recenzenata/ recenzentica, naročito imajući u vidu da su u aktu­alnim uvjetima kvalifikacije i ekspertiza uglavnom evidentni i lako provjerljivi.

U kontekstu kontinuirane devalvacije znanstvenog rada u BiH, svakako bi vrijedilo razmotriti i dodatne načine na koje bi se recenzenti mogli motivirati da prihvate recenziranje i da pišu kvalitetnije recenzije. Ta dodatna motivacija, kako su sugerirali neki od intervjuiranih urednika/urednica, mogla bi uključi­vati i određenu finansijsku naknadu. No, važno je istaknuti da je, prema relevantnim međunarodnim istraživanjima, više profesionalnog priznanja za njihov rad ključni faktor koji bi znanstvenike/znan- stvenice mogao motivirati da češće prihvaćaju ulo­gu recenzenata (usp. Flaherty, 2022). Kao dodatne načine profesionalnog priznanja recenzentskog rada neki od intervjuiranih urednika/ica su naveli objav­ljivanje popisa recenzenata/ica i izdavanja potvrda o recenzentskom angažmanu, što neki od časopisa u BiH već primjenjuju. Pored toga, kako ističe jedna od sugovornica, vrijedilo bi razmotriti i uvođenje dužih rokova za izradu recenzije, te intenzivirati angažman urednika/urednica znanstvenih časopisa, koji bi eliminirali veće propuste u samim tekstovi­ma prije nego što ih pošalju na recenziju.

S obzirom na pozitivna iskustva intervjuiranih ured­nika i urednica s recenzentima iz država iz neposred­nog okruženja, naročito onih s razvijenijom akadem­skom kulturom i dugom tradicijom objavljivanja akademskih časopisa, svakako bi bilo korisno na si­stematičan način raditi na uspostavljanju i produblji-

ers, some of the interviewed editors suggested pub­lishing a list of reviewers and issuing certificates of reviewer engagement, which some journals in B&H already practice. In addition, as one of the inter­viewees points out, it would be worth considering introducing longer deadlines for writing reviews, and intensifying the engagement of editors of scien­tific journals, who would eliminate major omissions in the papers themselves before sending them for review.

Considering the positive experiences of the inter­viewed editors with reviewers from neighboring countries, especially those with a more developed academic culture and a long tradition of publishing academic journals, it would certainly be useful to systematically work on establishing and deepening such international connections and exchanging ex­periences and knowledge in the field of academic peer review with editors and colleagues from such environments. Furthermore, additional education and training of editors, organization of peer review workshops, and responsible use of artificial intel­ligence can also help in facing the growing chal­lenges in the field of academic peer review (cf. Sto- janovski, 2024: 31). In addition, some elements of open peer review, elaborated in the previous part of this paper, also have the potential to contribute to the survival and improvement of academic peer re­view in B&H as well.

6. Concluding considerations

The crisis of academic peer review is a current global problem that has reflections in B&H. Simi­lar and increasingly pronounced problems related to finding a sufficient number of qualified and enthu­siastic reviewers and ensuring the necessary quality of reviews are mostly observed in the B&H context as well. Nonetheless, the experiences of the inter­viewed editors of academic journals from B&H indicate that there are serious problems in terms of material conditions, but also at the level of the academic community and culture in BiH, where sci­entific communication, exchange of arguments and awareness of active participation in the peer review process as an important contribution to the common project of raising academic criteria, is still not at the required level.

In such a context, it one can rightly ask whether the academic peer review system in B&H has even come to life to the level at which we could speak of its crisis, which would correspond to global trends in this domain. However, since there are various ini­tiatives on the global level that seek to improve the overall academic review system, which are also pre­sented to some extent in this paper, relevant stake­holders in B&H should strive to follow these trends.

230

Demiragić

vanju takvih međunarodnih veza i razmjeni iskustava i znanja u domenu akademskog recenziranja sa ured- nicima/urednicama i kolegama/kolegicama iz takvih sredina. Nadalje, dodatna edukacija i obučavanje urednika/ca, organiziranje recenzentskih radionica, te odgovorno korištenje vještačke inteligencije, tako­đer mogu pomoći u suočavanju sa rastućim izazovi­ma u domenu akademskog recenziranja (usp. Stoja- novski, 2024: 31). Pored toga, i neki elementi otvo­rene recenzije, elaborirani u prethodnom dijelu ovog rada, također imaju potencijal da doprinesu očuvanju i unapređenju akademskog recenziranja i u BiH.

7. Zaključna razmatranja

Kriza akademskih recenzija i recenziranja je ak­tualni globalni problem koji ima svoje refleksije i u BiH. Slični i sve izraženiji problemi vezani za pronalaženje dovoljnog broja kvalificiranih i entu- zijastičnih recenzenata, te osiguravanje potrebnog kvaliteta recenzija uglavnom se uočavaju i u bh. kontekstu. No iskustva intervjuiranih urednika i urednica akademskih časopisa iz BiH ukazuju na to da postoje i ozbiljni problemi u smislu materijalnih uvjeta, ali i na nivou akademske zajednice i kulture u BiH, u kojoj znanstvena komunikacija, razmjena argumenata i svijest o aktivnom učešću u procesu recenziranja kao bitnom doprinosu zajedničkom projektu podizanja akademskih kriterija, još uvijek nije na potrebnom nivou.

U takvom kontekstu opravdano je postaviti i pitanje je li sustav akademskog recenziranja u BiH uopće zaživio do nivoa na kojem bismo mogli govoriti o njegovoj krizi koja bi korespondirala s globalnim trendovima u ovom domenu. Ipak, budući da na glo­balnom planu postoji niz inicijativa koje nastoje da unaprijede ukupni sustav akademskog recenziranja, a koje su donekle prezentirane i u ovom radu, relevan­tni akteri u BiH treba da nastoje da prate te trendove. Naravno, kvaliteta akademskih recenzija je u direk­tnoj korelaciji s kvalitetom znanstvene i akademske zajednice o kojoj je riječ. U tom smislu, u kontekstu BiH, u kojem se akademski časopisi često grčevito bore za redovno i kontinuirano izlaženje, teško je očekivati da sam proces akademskog recenziranja bude znatno bolji ili kvalitetniji od njegovih ishoda, odnosno same akademske produkcije. No, imajući u vidu značaj i potencijal procesa recenziranja, upra­vo bi njegovo unapređenje, uz puno razumijevanje slabosti konteksta i značaja i uloge svih ključnih aktera, bio odlučni korak ka suštinskom podizanju kvaliteta znanstvene produkcije i zajednice u BiH – jedan po jedan akademski tekst.

It is well established that the quality of academic peer review is directly correlated with the quality of the scientific and academic community in ques­tion. In this sense, in the context of Bosnia and Her­zegovina, where academic journals often struggle anxiously to maintain regular and continuous pub­lication, it is difficult to expect that the process of academic review itself will be significantly better or of higher quality than its outcomes, that is, the aca­demic production itself. However, bearing in mind the importance and potential of the review process, it is precisely its improvement, with a full under­standing of the contextual challenges and the impor­tance and role of all key actors, that would present a decisive step towards substantially improving the quality of scientific production and the community in B&H—one academic paper at a time.

231

BOSNIACA 2025; 30: 213-233

Bibliografija / Bibliography

doi:10.1177/10783903231205311

Sveučilište u Mostaru. (2020) Pravilnik o minimalnim uvjetima i postupku izbora u znanstveno-nastav- na, umjetničko-nastavna i nastavna zvanja. https:// webadmin.sum.ba/api/storage/Pravilnik%20o% 20min_1595831506_51.pdf [25. 7. 2025]

Tennant, J. P., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2020). The limitati­ons to our understanding of peer review. Resear­ch integrity and peer review 5(1), 6.https://doi. org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1

Kanton Sarajevo. (2022). Zakon o visokom obrazovanju Kantona Sarajevo. Službene novine Kantona Sa­rajevo, 36.https://www.paragraf.ba/propisi/kan- tona- sarajevo/zakon-o-visokom-obrazovanju. html [20. 7. 2025]

BPK. (2021). Zakon o visokom obrazovanju Bosansko- podrinjskog kantona. Službene novine Bosansko- podrinjskog kantona, 4.https://www.paragraf. ba/propisi/bosansko-podrinjski-kanton-gorazde/ zakon-o-visokom-obrazovanju.html [20. 7. 2025]

RS. (2024). Zakon o visokom obrazovanju Republike Srpske. Službeni glasnik RS, 107.https://www. paragraf.ba/propisi/republika-srpska/zakon-o-vi- sokom-obrazovanju.html [20. 7. 2025]

ZHK. (2009). Zakon o visokom obrazovanju Zapadno- hercegovačkog kantona. Narodne novine Župa­nije Zapadnohercegovačke, 10.https://www.pa- ragraf.ba/propisi/zupanije-zapadnohercegovacke/ zakon-o-visokom-obrazovanju.html [10. 7. 2025]

ZDK. (2022). Zakon o visokom obrazovanju Zeničko- dobojskog kantona. Službene novine Zeničko-do- bojskog kantona.https://www.paragraf.ba/propi- si/zenicko-dobojskog-kantona/zakon-o-visokom- obrazovanju.html [20. 7. 2025]

232

Demiragić

233