EXTERNAL DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW
(PROCEDURE)
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW
The review is carried out by a Board of anonymous reviewers in which the Editorial Board has enrolled recognized scholars from different countries. External double-blind peer review of each of the presented paper is implemented. The name of the author from the text of the paper is erased (as well as from the file properties) and the received paper is consigned to two of the reviewers. During the evaluation process, they fill in a special review form and in its final part they mark their categorical opinion whether the received manuscript should be rejected or accepted (without corrections, with some necessary emendation and without second review, or with second review after the recommended necessary corrections have been done). The reviewers are obliged to send their reviews to the Editorial Board of the collection within 14 days. In case one of the two reviewers rejects the paper, it should be consigned for evaluation to an arbitrator whose positive evaluation is a necessary condition for continuation of the procedure.
After the submission of the review forms to the Editorial Board, the author is informed of the opinion of the reviewers and, if necessary, provides the final part of the review (Recommendations and overall evaluation) in order to make the needed emendations. The author should return the revised text of the article within two weeks.
The name and the affiliation of the author are added to the text, and after that the article is sent for pre-press preparation and publication.
The Editorial Board has the right to reject the materials that do not conform to the purpose of the collection, its ethical rules and do not meet the requirements for publication.
GUIDELINES FOR MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION FOR PUBLICATION:
See the section Изисквания (Requirements) (http://journals.uni-vt.bg/bb/bul/req.aspx) // Guidelines for authors (http://journals.uni-vt.bg/bb/eng/req.aspx).
SAMPLE
PUBLISHER’S REVIEW
of Bulraria, the Bulrarians and Europe - Myth, History, Modernity
(Published by the Faculty of History of the St Cyril and St Methodius University of Veliko Tarnovo)
Instructions: The collection observes the best academic standards and for that reason it considers the publication of articles as a creative process of cooperation between the author, the reviewers and the Editorial Board. The aim of the publisher’s review is to evaluate and develop the academic quality of the presented papers for publication. The constructive criticism is a necessary part of those processes because of which it should meet the standards of professional style.
The reviewers have to send the reviews to the Editorial Board of the collection within 14 days.
If necessary, the reviewers can make notes directly on the text, using the option “Track Changes” in Word (it is valid when an electronic copy of the reviewed paper is presented) or directly on the text with a pen (pencil), keeping the symbols and rules for emendation and notes in case a hard copy of the reviewed material is presented.
І. REVIEWER:
ІІ. TITLE OF THE ARTICLE:
ІІІ. SCHOLARLY CONTENT
(Indicate with Х Your assessment. The scale is: excellent – 5, poor – 0)
|
C R I T E R I A
|
ASSESSMENT
|
|
5
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
|
The article is connected with the subject of the conference and the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article concerns a question of present interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The subject of the article is original.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current bibliography is used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adequate scholarly methods are used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Considerable results are achieved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arguments supporting the conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ІV. QUALITY OF THE MANUSCRIPT
(Indicate with Х Your assessment. The scale is: excellent – 5, poor - 0)
|
C R I T E R I A
|
ASSESSMENT
|
|
5
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
|
The abstract reflects the content clearly enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The topic is clearly introduced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The previous achievements are correctly presented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The methodology and the methods are precisely formulated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Structure of the body text.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clarity of the conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Organization and correctness of the cited literature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clear and academic Bulgarian language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Length of the article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. RESOLUTION
(choose only one resolution and indicate with Х in the corresponding field)
|
R E S O L U T I O N
|
YES
|
NO
|
|
To be accepted for publication as presented.
|
|
|
|
To be accepted for printing with slight corrections without new review (the notes should be indicated in the presented copy).
|
|
|
|
To be accepted for printing with major corrections and to be reviewed again. (the notes should be indicated in the presented copy).
|
|
|
|
To be rejected.
|
|
|
VІ. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE AUTHOR:
|
Dear Mr./Ms.
In order to improve the quality of your text, it would be good to correct:
1. No recommendations
2.
3.
I ask you to send the corrected variant by ……… at the latest on the electronic address: ist@ts.uni-vt.bg
|
Confidentiality: The compilers guarantee that the reviews will remain anonymous and only for their use. The authors will receive only the notes in the text (if applicable), the recommendations in point VI and the final result (point V).