The reviewers are obliged to submit to the \u0415ditor-in-Chief or his deputy an assessment of the scientific value of the manuscript in a professional, well-argued, impartial manner and within the given deadlines.<\/p>\n\n
Reviewers evaluate papers in relation to the compatibility of the paper’s topic with the journal’s profile, then they determine the relevance of the researched area and applied methods, the originality and scientific relevance of the data presented in the manuscript, the style of scientific presentation and the text’s equipment with scientific apparatus.<\/p>\n\n
A reviewer who has well-founded doubts or knowledge about a violation of ethical standards by the author is obliged to inform the \u0415ditor-in-Chief or his deputy about it. The reviewer should identify important published works that the authors did not cite. He should warn the \u0415ditor-in-Chief or his deputy about important similarities and coincidences between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work or manuscript that is under review in another journal, if he has personal knowledge about it. If he has knowledge that the same manuscript is being considered in several journals at the same time, the reviewer is obliged to inform the \u0415ditor-in-Chief or his deputy about it.<\/p>\n\n
The reviewer must not have a conflict of interest with the authors or the funder of the research. If there is a conflict of interest, the reviewer is obliged to immediately notify the \u0415ditor-in-Chief or his deputy.<\/p>\n\n
A reviewer who considers himself\/herself incompetent for the topic or area the paper deals with is obliged to inform the \u0415ditor-in-Chief or his deputy.<\/p>\n\n
The review must be objective. The judgment of reviewers must be clear and supported by arguments.<\/p>\n\n
Manuscripts sent to a reviewer are considered confidential documents. Reviewers may not use unpublished material from submitted papers for their own research without the express written permission of the authors, and information and ideas presented in submitted papers must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Duties of Reviewers The reviewers are obliged to submit to the \u0415ditor-in-Chief or his deputy an assessment of the scientific value of the manuscript in a professional, well-argued, impartial manner and within the given deadlines. Reviewers evaluate papers in relation to the compatibility of the paper’s topic with the journal’s profile, then they determine the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-630","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"blocksy_meta":{"styles_descriptor":{"styles":{"desktop":"","tablet":"","mobile":""},"google_fonts":[],"version":6}},"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/evropskozakonodavstvo.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/630","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/evropskozakonodavstvo.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/evropskozakonodavstvo.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/evropskozakonodavstvo.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/evropskozakonodavstvo.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=630"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/evropskozakonodavstvo.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/630\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/evropskozakonodavstvo.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=630"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}