Peer Review Process

All articles published in the Journal of the Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” SASA undergo a rigorous double-blind peer-review process. The first review is based on an initial editor screening, which is followed by a more detailed review by at least two anonymous reviewers. Each submitted manuscript is evaluated on the following basis:

  • the originality of its contribution to the field of scholarly publishing;
  • the soundness of its theory and methodology gave the topic;
  • the coherence of its analysis;
  • its ability to communicate to readers (grammar and style).
The choice of reviewers is at the Editor-in-Chief’s discretion. The reviewers must be knowledgeable about the subject area of the manuscript; they must not be from the Authors’ own institution and they should not have recent joint publications with any of the Authors. Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Once the manuscript is accepted for publication, authors shall transfer the copyright to the Publisher. If the submitted manuscript is not accepted for publication by the Journal, all rights shall be retained by the author(s). Authors grant to the Publisher the following rights to the manuscript, including any supplemental material, and any parts, extracts, or elements thereof:

  • the right to reproduce and distribute the Manuscript in printed form, including print-on-demand;
  • the right to reproduce the Manuscript using photomechanical or similar means including, but not limited to photocopy, and the right to distribute these reproductions;
  • the right to reproduce and distribute the Manuscript electronically or optically on any and all data carriers or storage media – especially in machine-readable/digitalized form on data carriers such as hard drive, CD-ROM, DVD, Blu-ray Disc (BD), Mini-Disk, data tape – and the right to reproduce and distribute the Article via these data carriers;
  • the right to store the Manuscript in databases, including online databases, and the right of transmission of the Manuscript in all technical systems and modes;
  • the right to make the Manuscript available to the public or to closed user groups on individual demand, for use on monitors or other readers (including e-books), and in printable form for the user, either via the internet, other online services, or via internal or external networks.

The Journal allows authors to deposit Publisher's version/PDF in an institutional repository and non-commercial subject-based repositories, or to publish it on Author's personal website (including social networking sites) and/or departmental website, at any time after publication. Publisher copyright and source must be acknowledged, and a link must be made to the article's DOI (HTML link).

Peer reviewers should

  • Only agree to review articles for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner;
  • Respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of an article or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal;
  • Not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others;
  • Declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest;
  • Not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of an article, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations;
  • Be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments;
  • Acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner;
  • Provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise;
  • Recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

Initial phase

Before start the revision process, if there is any conflict of interest, lack of expertise in a concrete scientific area, or need extra time, please notify the Editor-in-Chief. Each received article is forwarded to two independent reviewers – double-blind peer-review process (reviewers do not know who the author of the article is, the author does not know who are the reviewers of his article). We insist on anonymity because we believe that this procedure will contribute to more independent, more critical, and better examination papers. If you are unable to comply with deadlines, please inform without delay notify the Editor-in-Chief. The typical period of time allowed for reviews is four to five weeks. If the decisions of the two reviewers are not the same (accept/reject), the Editor-in-Chief may assign additional reviewer(s). The purpose of peer review is to assists the Editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author it may also assist the author in improving the paper. The reviewer does not have the rights to the content of the paper, the other, or that data from the article that benefits are reviewed for any purpose. Reviewers have an obligation to care about ethical issues. If the paper is plagiarized or if the same title published in another journal or proceedings, please inform without delay notify the Editor-in-Chief. At the beginning of the reviewer form, the reviewer states his name, title, and the full name of the institution where he or she works. These data are confidential, remain with the editorial board and they will not be sent to the author of the article, in addition to the required corrections, suggestions, and complaints if any.

Investigate the journal’s content

The first detail you need is to observe the originality, relevance, presentation, and importance of the article. Visit the Authors’ Guidelines on the Journal’s homepage to see if the paper meets the submission criteria of the journal. This will help you in deciding whether the paper being reviewed is suitable or not. In the review form that you get, write your opinion - report on the quantitative work. The first question should be: Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?

Organization and clarity

The Title, Abstract, and Keywords: Do they clearly describe the article? Do they reflect the content of the article?

Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypotheses, and the general experimental design or method.

Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?

Results and discussion: This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.

Conclusion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?

How to write your report

Complete all the review questions in the report form. Write your report on the quantities work. Your report does not have to agree with the author’s attitudes. If so, make clear suggestions to the author in order to improve clarity, succinctness, and the overall quality of presentation. First of all, try to clarify whether the article fits within the scope of the journal, whether the article is original, whether the research helps to expand further research in this area, and would this article be of interest for reading the journal. If you find an answer to some of these questions, do not re-authorize the author to send it in a related journal. Also, see if the article is in standard English, whether the original research has the IMRAD method, whether there is an abstract of the article, as well as the concluding section.

Make a recommendation

After you finished reading the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief regarding publication. You should make one of the next decisions:

  • Accept the article without further revision – if the article is suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Accept after minor revision – if the article will be ready for publication after light revisions.
  • Accept after major revision – the article needs a lot of changes and needs to submit the article again.
  • Reject – if the paper is suitable for publication in the journal.

Revised papers

When authors revise their article in response to reviewers' comments, they should be asked to resubmit a list of changes and any comments for transmission to the reviewers. If possible, the revised version is usually returned to the original reviewer who is then asked to affirm whether the revisions have been carried out satisfactorily.

What if you cannot make a review

If you cannot make a review you should immediately notify the editorial office that you cannot do this job. If you are unable to complete your report on a paper in the agreed time frame inform the editorial office as soon as possible so that the refereeing procedure is not delayed.