Reviewer Guidelines

Review Purpose

The purpose of the review is to assist the Editor-in-Chief in making the final decision and to improve the quality of the manuscript through communication with the authors.

The main task of the reviewers is to assess each individual manuscript submitted to them, thereby contributing to the enhancement and maintenance of the high scientific and research scope and status of the journal itself, as well as the article's authors.

Anonymity and Confidentiality of Review

Zbornik Instituta za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja, or Journal of the Institute of Criminological and Sociological Research (Zbornik IKSI) uses double-blind review.

Reviewers work independently and anonymously. Their identities are unknown to each other, except when both parties express their willingness for direct communication.

All editorial board members and secretariat staff are obligated to maintain the anonymity of the review process. The content and the review procedure are considered confidential. Reviewers, as well as the editorial board members, must not disclose any details of this process to third parties.

Each manuscript is treated as a confidential document, and no information about it should be disclosed unless explicitly approved by the Editor-in-Chief for the purpose of obtaining an objective assessment of the text. Reviewers must not use unpublished material from submitted papers for their research without the written permission of the authors, and information and ideas presented in submitted papers must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Use of Large Language Models and generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools

Zbornik IKSI conforms to the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) recommendations on chatbots, ChatGPT and scholarly manuscripts and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)’s position statement on Authorship and AI tools.

Editors and Reviewers must ensure the confidentiality of the editorial work and the peer review process. Editors must not share information about submitted manuscripts or peer review reports with any tools based on large language models and generative AI. Reviewers must not use any tools based on large language models and generative AI to generate review reports. Concealing the use of AI tools is unethical and undermines transparency in editorial work and peer review. The editorial and review processes are confidential, and using AI tools on the manuscript makes it public, violating the confidentiality principle, disclosing confidential information in public, and compromising transparency.

Review Process

Manuscripts are sent for review after an initial assessment of their suitability for publication in the journal, considering their form and thematic scope. Special attention is paid to ensuring that the initial assessment does not take longer than necessary. Authors receive information about the outcome of the initial manuscript assessment and decision about initiation of the review process through a designated correspondence person.

The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to reviewers independently or based on the suggestions of editorial board members.

With the request for a review, reviewers receive reviewer guidelines along with a review form. Reviewers are provided with a deadline to confirm their acceptance of the review request and a deadline for completing the review.

Each reviewer receives the manuscript text without the authors' names and is required to confirm document receipt and their readiness to conduct the review within the specified timeframe.

Upon confirmation, the reviewer compiles the review either by completing the review form or in the form of a text that clearly and unambiguously addresses the key questions from the review form and provides their expert opinion and/or scientific evaluation of the manuscript, along with suggestions for categorising the work.

The review follows a standard format that includes evaluations of individual dimensions of the manuscript, a written explanation of the given ratings, suggestions for the authors, a final recommendation to the editors, and comments on the manuscript directed to the Editor-in-Chief. If the reviewers believe the manuscript deserves publication with revisions, they must specify how this can be achieved.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscripts in terms of the congruence of content with the profile of the Zbornik IKSI journal, the significance and relevance of the issues addressed, the adequacy of the methods applied, the scientific value and originality of the information presented, the soundness of interpretations and conclusions, the style and clarity of idea presentation, the text's structure, and formatting.

The review must conclude with a clear message to the Editor-in-Chief regarding the further handling of the reviewed manuscript, along with the final assessment: accept submission; revisions required; resubmit for review; resubmit elsewhere; decline submission.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are responsible for the quality of their reviews and for the quality of the manuscript accepted for publication. The quality of the review is evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers are obliged to provide the Editor with an expert assessment of the scientific or professional value of the manuscript within the given deadlines. Reviewers should pay particular attention to the actual contribution and originality of the manuscript. The review must be objective. Reviewers' judgments must be clear and supported by arguments. Comments that insult the author's personality or work are considered inappropriate.

Reviewers must not have a conflict of interest with the authors of the manuscript or the research funder. If such a conflict exists, the reviewer is obligated to promptly inform the Editor-in-Chief.

A reviewer who does not consider themselves sufficiently competent in the subject matter of the manuscript should inform the Editor-in-Chief that they are unable to accept the review assignment for that manuscript.

Reviewers should alert the Editor-in-Chief if they have a well-founded suspicion or knowledge of possible violations of ethical standards by the manuscript's authors.

Reviewers should identify relevant sources that were not considered in the manuscript and may recommend citing specific references, but should not demand citations of works published in the Zbornik IKSI journal or their own work without justification, or if it does not contribute to the quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers should also alert the Editor-in-Chief if they notice significant similarities between the manuscript under consideration and other published works, as well as if they have knowledge that the same manuscript is in the review process in another journal.

Competing Interests