Reviewer Guidelines
The journals Povijesni prilozi (Historical Contributions) uses double-blind peer review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.
The chief responsibility of the reviewer is to evaluate the article in a critical yet constructive manner, and to provide detailed comments about the paper under review to help the author improve it. The review of the article includes an assessment of the originality and the significance of the research conducted; the structure of the article; the methods applied; the presentation of the results; the strength of the argument; and the overall quality of the article.
The editors strongly encourage reviewers to read the COPE guidelines for peer reviewers on their webpage
The reviewers must let the editors know of any possible conflicts of interest concerning the authors or the article for which the review was requested. In the majority of such cases the reviewers should abstain from accepting the review.
Other responsibilities of the reviewer include confidential treatment of the article and submission of the review within the requested deadline. The reviewer should not show the article to anyone without explicit approval of the editor.
Reviewers’ comments should be courteous. The editor reserves to right to refuse to communicate any inappropriate comments to the author. The reviewers must not use information from the reviewed article in their own research.
They should also abstain from direct communication with the author directly. They should not reveal their identity. The only exception is if direct communication with the author has been agreed upon by the editor.
The review must be based in a thorough analysis of the article and the reviewer’s good knowledge of the field and the relevant literature. The review should also point out any gaps and problems in the article and contain, if possible, proposals on how to change and improve the article in order to move it into a higher category (see below). The reviewers should also propose the classification of the article.
- Original research paper: contains hitherto unpublished results of original research studies. These results should be presented in a way that allows testing of their accuracy as well as the accuracy of the analysis and conclusions based on these results.
- Preliminary communication: contains new research results but without sufficient detail to allow verification. A preliminary communication may communicate results of a research study in progress, the timeliness of which demands fast publication. It is expected that a full version of the article will be published at a later date.
- Review Article: contains a thorough overview of the state and developmental directions of a field, including critical evaluation and assessment. The bibliography must be sufficiently comprehensive to allow a proper insight into the state of the field.
- Professional paper: may contain a discussion of an original solution or important practical exercises. A professional paper contributes towards the spread of information and knowledge.
