Instructions to refereesабв

| Home | Editorial board | Instructions to authors | Subscription | Instructions to referees | Issues | Indexing |
  • What is peer review?
  • Referee process
  • Types peer review
  • Referee’s obligations
  • Peer review system of the journal
  • Editorial system of the journal
  • Support
  • Referee’s brochure
  • What is peer review? – www.info.org/peer_review.html

Peer review (SCIENTISTS REFEREE SCIENTISTS) is a good practice for careful selection of high quality manuscripts for publication in a given scientific journal, made by experts from the same scientific field. The aim of this practice is to maintain high scientific level of the published works, which reflect on the journal’s ranking. This good practice is based on the theory that more experts could be more helpful in finding failures at given manuscript.

Advantages:

This good practice prevents toleration or discrimination of authors and promotes honest selection process. This good practice is connected with referee’s selection outside the professional circle of authors. The chosen referees are obligated to declare lack of conflict of interests.

Disadvantages:

This good practice takes long time, could prevent the publication of new and original works, almost impossible to identify fraud.

 

  • Referee process

 

 

 

 

  • Types peer review

Single „blind” referee – author is not familiar with the names of the referees.

Advantages – independence of the referee

Disadvantages – possibilities for self-interest delay of the referee and referee’s publishing on the same subject or for negative criticism because of anonymity.

 

Double „blind” referee – both author and referees are unknown each other.

Advantages – prevents toleration or discrimination of authors

Disadvantages – it is not so sure that the referee process is completely „blind”, because of the possibilities for recognition of authors via their own style, autocitations ets.

 

Open referee - both author and referees are familiar each other

Advantages – prevent negative comments, plagiarism, and referee’s publication on the         

same subject; encourage honest referee process.

Disadvantages – promote toleration or discrimination of authors, especially in the case of young and unknown authors, or in case of young and inexperience referees.

 

  • Referee’s obligations
  1. Support of the editorial decision.

The referee process supports the editorial decision as well as authors for improvement of the manuscript. The referee process is a key factor of the official scientific communication and is base of the scientific approach. We, from the Acta Scientifica Naturalis believe that every one who wishes to publish in our journal has to take the obligations of a referee.

  1. Expedition.

Every nominee for referee for the Acta Scientifica Naturalis, who presume that his/her expertise level is not suitable for the given manuscript, or who are not on a position to do the referee at the fixed date, are obligated to inform the editor.

  1. Confidentiality.

Every accepted for referee manuscript must be treated as confidential document, which must not to be discussed with third party, except with special permission.

  1. Objectivity.

The referee process has to be done with maximal objectivity. Personal criticism is forbidden. The referees must express their attitude on the submitting documents only!

  1. Accuracy of the information.

The referees are obligated to identify information concerning the subject of the manuscript, which is not cited in, as well as similarity to the already published articles.

  1. Conflict of interests.

The unpublished data from the manuscript of an author is forbidden for publication from the referee. The information gathering during the referee process is forbidden for application. In the case of potential conflict of interests the referees are obligated to refuse the nomination.

  1. Ethical issues.

The publishing in Acta Scientifica Naturalis has deep impact on the quality of authors and on the ranking of the “K.Preslavsky”University. We, from Acta Scientifica Naturalis percept our duties for supporting of high scientific level very serious. We declare that advertising as well as other salesmanship can not influence the editorial decision. Finally, we declare that we are in permanent contact with other publishers or organizations for establishment of set of standards for good practices and ethical issues.

 

  • Peer review system of the journal

Open referee - both author and referees are familiar each other

Advantages – prevent negative comments, plagiarism, and referee’s publication on the same subject; encourage honest referee process.

Disadvantages – promote toleration or discrimination of authors, especially in the case of young and unknown authors, or in case of young and inexperience referees.

 

  • Editorial system of the journal

 

  • Support

SCOPUS world largest data base for abstracts and citations from more than 15 000 peer reviewed journals from 4000 publishers. SCOPUS offers also web- and patent information, as well as access to full text articles, library information and references. www.info.scopus.com

ScienceDirect is one of the modern web-based systems for engineering, scientific and medical information, which offer direct access to abstracts, journals and articles.

Scirus is access free web machine of Elsevier created especially for scientists. www.scirus.com

SciTopics is access free wiki-like data base for scientific information. www.scitopics.com

 

  • Referee’s brochure

Structure of the manuscript:

Has the manuscript correct structure?

Are all the main structural elements presented – abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions?

Contents of the main structural elements:

Title – is the title informative enough?

Abstract – is the abstract relevant to the content of the manuscript?

Introduction – is the introduction informative enough concerning author’s goals, problems for resolving? It is normal the introduction section to be no more than two paragraphs and to generalize all the previous experience and publications on the subject, as well as the experimental hypothesis of author.

Methodology – has the author described clear enough the process of data collection? Is the experiment’s design appropriate enough for answer the questions? Does the delivered information allow the repetition of the results? If the applied methods are new, are they explained in details? Is the machinery and applied materials adequately described? Is it clear what sort of data will be collected? Is the author correct enough by measurement’s describing?

Results – In this section author describes the discovered facts by him/her. This description has to be clear and logical. The referee has to decide whether the appropriate analyses are given, whether statistics is correct. Including of any kind of interpretation in this section is forbidden.

Conclusions/Discussion – are the conclusions are confirmed by results and are they acceptable enough? Has the author demonstrated the relations between collected results and the declare expectations or previous investigations? Is the manuscript supported or disproved previous theory? Are the conclusions contributions to the development of the knowledge in the corresponding area?

Language/Grammar – if the manuscript is carelessly written, with grammar failures, which make it difficult to be understood, the referee is not obligated to correct the failures, but has to alarm the editor.

Figures and tables- are the figures and tables informative enough? Are they an important part of the manuscript? Are they describing clear enough the collected data?

Previous investigations:

If the manuscript is based on the previous investigations, are they described appropriate? Are there important publications on the subject, which are not cited by the author? Are the references adequate?

Ethical issues:

Plagiarism – if there is any suspicion for plagiarism, referee is obligated to alarm the editor and to attach the exact bibliography of the original source.

Fraud – it is difficult to be detected, but if there is any suspicion for, referee is obligated to discuss it with the editor.

Other ethical issues – if the investigation is on medical subject, is the principle of confidentiality kept? If there is any suspicion for violence on the ethical issues for laboratory animals treatment, referee is obligated to alarm the editor.

Sending of the referee to the editor

The next step after finishing of the referee process is writing of the referee and a referee’s report. The referee’s report has to content all the key elements of your referee. All the comments have to be attentive and constructive without expression of any personal attitude. Every single statement of the referee has to be explained in details, so both editor and author to be able to understand it. The referee’s statement has to be distinguished clear from those collected from the manuscript.

 


115 Universitetska Street,
Shumen, BG 9712,
BULGARIA
Tel: +359 54 830 ...
Fax: +359 54 830 371