Editorial and Peer Review Policy

The editorial and the peer review process is carried out in several steps.

In the first (pre-vote) step, the Editor-in-Chief evaluates the received paper. During the initial editorial stage decision, plagiarism software PlagScan is used to compare submitted article with existing online publications. The percentage of concordance and tolerance limits are 15%. The editor of the scientific field of work reviews the obtained results and informs the other members of the Editorial Board about them. If there are any doubts in the results of the PlagScan check, the members of the Editorial Board reconsider the article in detail. If the subject of the paper does not belong to the scientific field of the journal and its quality does not correspond to the contents published in Journal of Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Split, the paper will be rejected.

In the second (vote) step, members of the Editorial Board of Journal of Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Split additionally evaluate the received paper. In the process of a preliminary editorial evaluation, members of the Editorial Board provide concise comments on the quality of the paper and evaluate the compliance of the paper with Guidelines for authors of Journal of Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Split. The final decision is made by a majority of affirmative votes. In case of insufficient number of affirmative votes, the paper is not submitted for peer review but it is sent back to the author for the refinement.

For the received papers that were accepted in the first and second step, the third step follows. In the third step, members of the Editorial Board suggest potential reviewers and submit the paper to the peer review process. Members of the Editorial Board are primarily involved in this step and, if necessary, members of the International Advisory Committee may also be involved. When suggesting potential reviewers, members of the Editorial Board and members of the International Advisory Committee consider the scientific field or branch of engagement of the potential reviewer, his / her previous scientific research and publications, as well as his / her scientific or scientific-teaching title (same or higher than the author’s) and knowledge of the language in which the paper is referred for review.

Papers undergo at least two and at most five independent reviews that evaluate the acceptability of the paper for publication. In case there is a discrepancy in the categorisation of the paper or in the case of contradictory reviews, the paper will be sent to a third, fourth or fifth reviewer. The Editorial Board provides a standard review process – the so-called double-blind peer review where neither the author knows the identity of the reviewer nor the reviewer that of the author. Review information does not get published on the website not even after the publication of the journal.

Before accepting a review assignment, the reviewer should consider whether the paper is within his / her area of expertise and check if there is a potential conflict of interest during the peer review process. By accepting the review assignment, the reviewer acknowledges that there is no conflict of interest regarding submitted manuscripts, such as competitive, collaborative, personal or other relationships with any of the parties. The paper and a review form are sent to the potential reviewers. If a selected reviewer is unable to evaluate the paper, members of the Editorial Board suggest another reviewer. In the process of the evaluation of a paper, Croatian, as well as foreign reviewers, participate. Comments, opinions and requests for corrections from the Editorial Board and / or International Advisory Committee highlighted in the preliminary assessment process may also be a part of the review.

Reviewed papers are categorized as:
original (scientific) paper
contains previously unpublished original research presented in an objectively verifiable manner
preliminary note
contains new scientific research results that require quick publication and does not have to enable results to be verified
an original, concise and critical review of an area or its part in which the author by himself actively participates and in which the author’s original contribution in that area must be emphasized in relation to already published papers, as well as an overview of these papers
professional paper
contains useful contributions from a specific profession and does not need to represent an original research

The reviewer suggests a category for the paper, while the Editor-in-Chief together with members of the Editorial Board makes the final decision.

In the fourth step, the review is sent to the author, asking him / her to correct the article following the comments of the reviewers and to submit the corrected paper to the Editorial Board within twenty days. If the reviewer requested to revise the paper once again, after it has been corrected and improved, upon receipt of the corrected paper, it is sent to him / her once again. If authors do not accept comments and suggestions of reviewers and members of the Editorial Board and / or members of the International Advisory Committee, or if they do not provide a detailed and adequate response to their comments, the paper is rejected. If the Editor-in-Chief considers that the author has strong arguments contrary to the opinions of reviewers, he seeks the opinion of a third (or fourth, or even fifth) reviewer. The opinion of a third (or fourth or fifth reviewer) may be requested earlier, during the peer review process, and before sending the peer review to the author, if the Editor-in-Chief and / or members of the Editorial Board and members of the International Advisory Committee consider opinions of reviewers to be contradictory and in contrast and that there is a need for more precise evaluation of the paper.

In the fifth step, the paper is referred to proofreading. After proofreading, papers are returned to authors with request to correct the paper within a few days according to the instructions of a proofreader.

The sixth step refers to preparing a digital print of the corrected paper. The first version of the digitally prepared paper is sent to the author for a review. After the author’s corrections, it is sent to the Copy Editor who unifies corrections. The digital preparation of the second version of the paper follows after the Copy Editor has verified that the author’s corrections have been accepted and entered in the corrected version. A new, corrected, digital version of the paper is sent to members of the Editorial Board for the review. Members of the Editorial Board send their comments and corrections to the Copy Editor who brings them together. After the Copy Editor has unified all the corrected papers into a single pdf version of the journal, it is sent for final review to the Editor-in-Chief. Papers prepared in this way are published in the printed and online version of the journal. For any post publication commenting, readers are invited to contact the Editor-in-Chief by email.