Peer review

Peer Review

All manuscripts in Diogenes are accepted under the conditions of a deadline establishment for each issue (two issues per year). Diogenes employs double-blinded review process: authors are blinded to the identities of the reviewers of their manuscripts and vice versa. Original Articles, Brief Reports and Review Articles, and Supplemental Articles are invited for peer review by the editors.

The Editor-in-Chief assesses each submission to the thematic book to determine whether the subject and the content of the manuscript are appropriate for the thematic book. Each manuscript that meets the Scope of Relevance and the ethical guidelines will be further considered for peer review. The Associate Editor will examine whether the selected manuscripts meet the technical requirements. The ones that do not meet these requirements will be returned for correction or removed from the selection process if the established deadline for paper submission is due.

The editors invite expert researchers to peer review the selected manuscripts. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for determining and conveying the final decision on all manuscripts. The Editor-in-Chief may consult with Advisory Board members if there is significant divergence of opinion among the Associate Editors and/or the peer reviewers on how a manuscript should be decided. All correspondence related to the peer review of each manuscript is confidential.

Reviewers are appointed to each particular manuscript according to their expertise, reputation, specific experience, and their previous reviewer record. The Advisory Board is responsible for the constant update of the thematic book reviewer database.

The thematic book Diogenes confines into the best academic practices, and considers the publishing of articles to be a creative process of collaboration between the author, the reviewers and the editors. The purpose of the peer review is to evaluate the academic quality of the manuscripts suggested for publishing. Constructive criticism is a necessary part of this process, so it should be conducted in a professional and respectful manner. The peer reviewers are asked to submit their reviews with conclusion and recommendations to the editors. If it is necessary, the reviewers may decide to make their comments inside the text using the option “track changes”.

 

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript meets the following conditions:

 

I.Section 1: Scientific content

  • Topic relevance
  • Topicality
  • Originality
  • Relevant and up-to-date references
  • Sound methodology
  • Significance of Results
  • Argumentative adequacy

 

II.Section 2: Quality of Manuscript

  • The abstract clearly presents the content
  • The topic is well introduced
  • Well-presented former contributions
  • Well –defined methodology
  • Structure of writing
  • Clearness of thesis
  • Organization and adequacy of cited literature
  • Clear academic style of writing
  • Manuscript length

 

Different criteria are quantified by measurement form 0 to 5, where 0 is poor and 5 is excellent. Manuscripts are subject to four conclusions:

1.     Approved for publishing without further corrections (when all criteria in both sections score 3 or higher )

2.     Approved for publishing with minor corrections that are not due to another review (when no more than one criterion in section 1 and/or no more than two in section 2 score below 3, but not 0)

3.     Approved under the condition of sufficient changes in response to given recommendations, subject to another review. (when no more than two criteria in section 1 and/or no more than three in section 2 score below 3, but not 0)

4.     Approval not granted (when more than two criteria in section 1 and/or more than three in section 2 score below 3, or, when there are criteria that score 0)

The recommendations and notes are stated in the end of the review.