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.