REVIEW PROCEDURE
Reviewing is carried out by a Board of Anonymous Reviewers, in which the Editorial Board has attracted established scientists from different countries. External double anonymous review of each of the submitted articles is carried out. The author's name is deleted from the text of the material (and from the properties of the electronic file) and the proposed article is provided to two of the reviewers. During the evaluation, they fill out the special review form, indicating in its final part an unequivocal opinion whether the proposed work should be rejected or accepted (without corrections, with necessary corrections and without re-reviewing or for re-reviewing after recommended and necessary corrections). Reviewers must send their reviews to the Editorial Board of the collection within 14 days. In case one of the two reviewers has rejected the article, it is also submitted for evaluation to an arbitrator, whose positive assessment is the necessary condition for continuing the procedure.
After the review forms are received by the editorial board, the author is notified of the reviewers' opinion and, if necessary, is provided with the final part of the review ("Recommendations and overall assessment") to make the necessary corrections. The author returns the new version of his article within two weeks. The author's names and affiliation are added to the text, after which the article is sent for pre-print preparation and publication.
The editorial board has the right to reject those materials proposed for publication that are not in accordance with the goals of the yearbook, its ethical rules and do not meet the requirements for publication.
SAMPLE:
PUBLISHER'S REVIEW
of the yearbook “Development of the Bulgarian and European Economy - Challenges and Opportunities” (Published by the Faculty of Economics of the University of Veliko Tarnovo “St. Cyril and Methodius”)
Instructions: The yearbook adheres to the best academic standards, therefore it treats the publication of articles as a creative process of cooperation between the author, the reviewers and the editorial board. The purpose of the publisher's review is to evaluate and develop the academic quality of the materials proposed for publication. Constructive criticism is a necessary part of these processes, therefore it must be carried out in a professional style.
Reviewers must send their reviews to the yearbook's editorial board within 14 days.
If necessary, reviewers can make notes directly on the text using the “track changes” option in Word (valid if an electronic copy of the reviewed material is provided), or directly on the text with a pen (pencil), observing the symbols and rules for corrections and notes, if a physical copy of the reviewed material is provided.
PUBLISHER REVIEW
I. REVIEWER:
II. TITLE OF THE ARTICLE:
III. SCIENTIFIC CONTENT
(mark with an X your assessment. The scale is: excellent – 5, poor – 0)
|
C R I T E R I E S
|
|
|
5
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
|
The article is related to the topic of the publication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article is up-to-date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The topic of the article is original
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current scientific literature has been drawn upon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adequate scientific methods have been applied
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Significant results have been achieved
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arguments supporting the conclusion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IV. QUALITY OF THE MANUSCRIPT
(mark your assessment with an X. The scale is: excellent – 5, poor - 0)
|
C R I T E R I E S
|
EVALUATION
|
|
5
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
|
The summary reflects the content clearly enough
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The topic is introduced clearly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous achievements are presented correctly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The methodology and methods are formulated precisely
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Structure of the presentation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clarity of the conclusion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Organization and correctness of the cited literature
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clear academic Bulgarian language
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Length of the article
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. SOLUTION
(choose only one solution and mark with an X in the appropriate box)
|
DECISION
|
YES
|
NO
|
|
To be accepted for printing as submitted
(when all criteria in both sections have a score equal to or higher than 3)
|
|
|
|
To be accepted for printing with minor corrections, without the need for further review (the comments should be reflected on the submitted copy)
(when no more than 1 criterion in section 1 and/or no more than 2 in section 2 have a score lower than 3, but not 0)
|
|
|
|
To be accepted for printing with major corrections and to be reviewed again
(the comments should be reflected on the submitted copy)
(when no more than two criteria in section 1 and/or no more than 3 in section 2 have a score below 3, but not 0)
|
|
|
|
To be rejected
(when more than two criteria in section 1 and/or more than three in section 2 have a score below 3 or there are criteria with a score of 0)
|
|
|
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE AUTHOR:
|
Dear Madam, Sir,
In the interest of improving the quality of your text, it would be good to correct:
1. No recommendations
2.
3.
4.
|
Confidentiality: the compilers guarantee that the reviews will remain anonymous and for their use only. The authors will only receive the notes in the text (if applicable), the recommendations under item VI and the final result (item V).