Ethics Statements for reviewers

Reviewers participate in a double-blind review process and determine whether manuscripts meet the journal’s criteria and standards, whether the principles of ethical publishing conduct have been followed, and whether there are any violations of rules and criteria.

The list of reviewers has been published annually and in a separate issue on the websites of the Rhetoric and Communication Journal since 2011. This ensures transparency in the peer review process. It also achieves a renewal of the team of reviewers in order to increase quality in the review process by involving competent scholars in given fields. The list provides information on each reviewer with regard to their scientific expertise, academic affiliation, email.

The reviewer receives an invitation from the Editorial Board and/or the Editor-in-Chief. He/she can accept or refuse to participate in the review process by presenting arguments, e.g. those related to insufficient qualifications, suspected conflict of interest, etc. In such cases, the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board will send an invitation to another reviewer.

The reviewers determine whether the manuscript presents the results of the authors’ (individual or team) research and studies at the theoretical, methodological or methodological, practical and applied level.

Double blind or anonymous peer review by two independent reviewers, which is implemented for each issue and for each scientific article in the journal, is an important element of fair academic communication that ensures the high quality of the journal’s scientific output. Peer review also contributes to improving the authors’ skills to produce texts with high scientific content, to develop and use self-reflection for advancement in their scientific career while meeting quality standards.

The reviewers prepare and send the reviews within the specified deadline, using a review form (in Bulgarian or English, respectively), in which the criteria for evaluation are strictly, clearly and accurately presented at the structural, content, scientific, linguistic, stylistic, bibliographic level. The reviewers present their decisions in the form of a text, by giving arguments on the evaluations and by quantitative measures, presenting a final evaluation using one of four options: acceptance, linguistic and stylistic editing, revision of structure and content, or rejection.

The reviewers inform the members of the Editorial Board of any omissions, errors, inaccuracies, ambiguities and other deficiencies found in the manuscripts.

The reviewers shall inform the members of the Editorial Board of any suspected plagiarism, noncompliance with copyright, infringement of intellectual property, or violation of ethical norms and rules.

The reviewers shall not allow any personal attitude towards the authors.

Reviewers involved in the peer review process have obligations, and they respect the principles of privacy and confidentiality, and they do not provide information about the manuscript under review except to the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board and issue editors.

Peer reviewers respect the principles of privacy and confidentiality, and this also applies to reviewers who decline the invitation to review and do not make such a commitment to the Editorial Board.