Review
| Процедура за рецензиране
|
Политика за рецензиране | Изисквания към рецензентите |
| Review procedure
|
Review Policy | Review procedure
|
PEER REVIEW / PEER REVIEW PROCEDURE
in the scientific journal Rhetoric and Communications
Rhetoric and Communications Journal shares and adheres to the scientific and publication ethics policies of SORE and the Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK) – Elsevier
Variant 1
Review procedure
Peer review – procedure – stages – situations
How are manuscripts submitted for publication in the journal?
Manuscripts are sent to the Rhetoric and Communication Journal email addresses and via online submission.
Authors must adhere to the structure criteria; if these are not met, the Editorial Board members and issue editors return the manuscript to the author. The author’s revised manuscript according to the criteria for a structure of a text and formatting is resubmitted to the journal’s email.
How long does the process of “double-blind review” by two independent reviewers take?
The procedure takes place under “double-blind peer review”:
– The reviewers are not informed who the author(s) of the submitted manuscript is.
– The author(s) of the manuscript are in no way informed who the reviewers are.
The peer review process is 14 days/two weeks for two independent reviewers.
What is the publication process for two positive peer reviews?
First possible situation
If the manuscript receives two positive reviews and there is no advice or recommendations for the author:
– The manuscript is sent to the editors of the journal / editors of issue and proofreaders.
– After edits, proofreading and corrections, the manuscript is submitted in the final version to the Editorial Board and the issue editors.
– The manuscript is prepared for preprint.
– The manuscript is prepared for online publication.
– The manuscript is published on the websites (in Bulgarian and English) of Rhetoric and Communications Journal respectively in pdf and html formats.
Second possible situation:
First stage
If the manuscript receives two positive reviews, but the reviews contain advice and recommendations for the author, these advice and recommendations are sent anonymously to the author by the issue editors and the Editorial Board. The author must within 2 weeks:
– Make revisions in light of the guideline regarding the structure and content of the initial version of the manuscript.
– Make improvements and refinements to the text in relation to the recommendations on research methods and methodology.
– Edit the bibliography, references and citations according to the guideline of Rhetoric and Communications Journal, APA style, 7th edition (2020), and the recommendations of the reviewers.
– Correct grammatical and punctuation errors, make style and language edits.
– Correct omissions identified by the reviewers.
– Make transcriptions of the sources in Cyrillic alphabet if this is noted in the review.
– To send the edited manuscript to the journal email address.
Second stage
– The manuscript revised by the author send by e-mail to reviewers.
The author’s revised manuscript is sent by e-mail to the reviewers.
– The reviewers inform the Editorial Board and the issue editors whether the author has corrected the errors.
Third stage
– If the manuscript meets the criteria, it is sent to the editors and proofreaders of the journal in Bulgarian and English, respectively.
– After the edits and corrections, the manuscript is submitted in the final version to the issue editors.
– The manuscript is prepared for preprint.
– The manuscript is prepared for online publication.
– The manuscript is published on the websites (in Bulgarian and English) of Rhetoric and Communications Journal respectively in pdf and html formats.
Third possible situation:
– If the initial reviewers find that errors have not been corrected, the manuscript is resubmitted to the author.
– The author must correct the deficiencies within 2 weeks.
– If the initial reviewers find that the author’s edited manuscript does not meet the criteria, it is rejected outright.
How is the author informed about the publication of the manuscript?
– Authors are informed by email that the manuscript has been published.
– If the author finds omissions and errors in the article already published online, he/she informs the Editorial Board. Errors are corrected by the editors and the online editor. The author is informed within one week.
– Confidentiality is guaranteed. Authors of manuscripts receive only the notes and recommendations on the text given by the reviewers.
What is the publication process if there is one negative and one positive peer review?
- – If there is one negative review, a revision of the manuscript is allowed.
– The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board and the issue editors.
- of the journal may require more than one review of the manuscript by an expert.
- – In such cases, it is possible to send invitations to other reviewers to review the manuscript, as well as an editorial review form.
– If the second review is positive, the manuscript will be referred for editing first by the author and then by the issue editors.
- – If a negative review is again received, an invitation is sent to a third reviewer. If the reviewer agrees, the manuscript is sent anonymously, as well as an editorial review form. If the third reviewer’s review is negative, the manuscript is finally rejected.
What is the publication process if there are two negative reviews by two independent reviewers?
– If there are two negative reviews, the manuscript is rejected.
– The author of the manuscript is notified by email of this, providing substantiated information and reasoning based on the reviews.
– The author is informed that he/she may offer the manuscript for publication elsewhere at his/her discretion.
Requirements for reviewers
Who can be a reviewer?
Reviewers are university lecturers, established scientists and researchers.
The Editorial Board has the right to invite external reviewers who are not on the approved list if it deems there is a need.
The names of the author(s), their academic and institutional affiliation remain unknown to the reviewers.
The peer review process fulfils the important role of ensuring the high quality of published scientific articles.
The peer review process contributes to the production and publication of scientific information of high theoretical, practical or applied value.
The lists contain information about the expertise of the reviewers and in which scientific fields they work, publish and teach.
Individuals who are appointed to be reviewers have responsibilities and duties. They carry out important activities, and this ensures that scientific texts that meet the criteria are published.
Reviewers follow a professional approach and respect ethical criteria based on their previous achievements.
Reviewers respect the principles of confidentiality and they remain anonymous to the authors of the manuscripts. Reviews are only accessible by the Editorial Board and the issue editors in the manuscript process for publication. Reviews are kept solely in the archives of the Editorial Board of Rhetoric and Communications Journal.
What responsibilities and rights do reviewers have?
– The reviewer receives an invitation from the editorial board. He or she may accept or decline, providing arguments as to whether he or she is competent and expert in a particular scientific field, or if there is a conflict of interest, or relevance at a professional and institutional level to the subject of the manuscript.
– The reviewer reviews the manuscript and completes the review form (editorial review) prepared by the Editorial Board of the journal.
– The reviewer shall monitor the manuscript for originality and authorship and inform the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board if the reviewer determines that the author has made an objective judgment of the manuscript’s scientific merit.
– The reviewer formulates his/her assessment based on expertise and does not allow personal criticism in the reviews.
– The reviewer shall indicate on the review form (publisher’s review) where errors have been made and where there are omissions. He/she gives recommendations and examples to edit the manuscript and improve its quality.
– Uses sources that are not authored or have similarity to previously published scientific texts.
– The reviewer notifies the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board if he/she finds a conflict of interest.
– The reviewer has the right to refuse to review a manuscript and to inform the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board, providing arguments.
– The reviewer may not disseminate information that the manuscript has been rejected.
– The reviewer may not disseminate or use information that has come to his/her knowledge during the review process. This also applies in full force to those who have declined the invitation to review the manuscript.
What do reviewers appreciate?
- The reviewer assesses the scientific creativity, theoretical background and research skills of the authors.
- The reviewer assesses the relevance and importance of the topic in the manuscript proposed for publication.
- The reviewer evaluates manuscripts solely on their scientific merit, research findings, and intellectual content, regardless of the ethnicity, national identity, race, gender, political philosophy, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs of the authors.
- The reviewer completes the review form according to the criteria specified in the form and sends it to the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board.
- The reviewer participates responsibly in the publication process. The reviewer provides recommendations, advice, critical comments. He gives constructive feedback and supports the authors’ academic career development process.
- The reviewer provides an overall assessment of the manuscript as well as specific advice on punctuation, spelling and the use of scientific style. He/she gives clear arguments for his/her evaluation and does not allow ambiguous evaluations.
- The reviewer who gives an opinion and an assessment for rejection shall indicate on which pages of the manuscript what errors have been made, whether the criteria presented in the publisher’s review form have been met.
- The reviewer assesses the scientific, informational and visual quality of the tables, diagrams, photographs, collages, infographics, maps, etc. presented by the authors in the text of the manuscript.
- The reviewer makes additional recommendations if deemed necessary.
- The reviewer takes into account whether the Cyrillic sources are correctly transcribed according to the guidelines and notes in the review if there are any omissions.
- The reviewer should accurately indicate bibliographic references and citations to major scholarly works that the author may have forgotten, omitted, or failed to indicate in the text of his or her manuscript.
- The reviewer should inform the Editorial Board and issue editors of any similarities he/she has found in the text of the manuscript he/she is reviewing with other published works.
The final decision to publish a manuscript after two positive reviews is made by the members of the Editorial Board and the issue editors, with no outside influence.
Review Policy
In its peer review policy, Rhetoric and Communication shares and adheres to the following official documents:
Sources:
[1] COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers.
[2] Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK) – Elsevier. https://beta.elsevier.com/editor/perk?trial=true.
[3] CSE White Paper on Publication Ethics. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics.
[4] The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Revised Edition, ALLEA (2017). http://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf.
[5] European Code of Research Integrity: revised edition (Европейски етичен кодекс за почтеност на научните изследвания: Преработено издание), ALLEA. http://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017-Digital_BG_FINAL.pdf.