Peer Review
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS
- CREATION AND DEADLINE FOR SENDING THE REVIEW
The reviewer prepares a review in accordance with the instructions for reviewers, evaluating the quality of the work and its compliance with the instructions for authors. The deadline for sending the review is 10 (ten) days from the day of receipt of the work, by filling in the form that the reviewer downloads from the journal's website and submits to the editor via e-mail: spmisao@pf.unibl.org. If it is necessary for the author to make corrections in the paper, he is obliged to do so within 10 (ten) days from the date of submission of the review.
- ETHICAL RULES
Reviewing is an anonymous process (the reviewer does not know the identity of the author, nor does the author know the identity of the reviewer). The reviewer should inform the editor if he believes that there is a conflict of interest in connection with the review of a specific paper. The reviewer may not accept for review works outside the area for which he is considered to be competent.
Reviewers should inform the editor if they notice any violation of the ethical and scientific code in the paper. Reviewers should identify relevant sources not considered in the paper and alert the editor to significant similarities between the reviewed paper and any other published work or manuscript under review in another journal or collection, if they are aware of it. Reviewers should also alert the editor that the same manuscript has been submitted for publication to another journal or proceedings, if they are aware of it. Reviewers can recommend the citation of certain references, but not require the citation of papers, if there is no scientific justification for this.
Each manuscript is treated as a confidential document, and no information may be given about it. Data and ideas from the manuscript may not be used until the paper is published.
- REVIEW PROCESS
When evaluating the paper, the reviewer assesses the originality of the paper, the importance of the topic, the adequacy of the applied methods, the scientific relevance of the data presented in the paper, the style of presentation, whether the paper corresponds to the topic of the collection, whether it is based on relevant scientific knowledge from the given field, and whether it contains all the necessary elements provided by the Instructions for Authors. The reviewer's assessment of the quality of work must be clear, based on arguments. Reviewers are expected to improve the quality of the manuscript with their suggestions. If the reviewer assesses that the work deserves publication with changes, he is obliged to specify the way in which this can be achieved. The reviewer is obliged to subsequently review the work that has been modified according to his suggestions and comments, if it is required to return the work for re-review.
The reviewer evaluates the work by filling out a review form in which he can give suggestions and comments to the author in order to improve the quality of the work. The reviewer can also make suggestions to the author in the text of the paper itself using MS Word's Track Changes option and comments, provided that he uses them in a way that will ensure that his identity remains hidden from the author(s). In the case of using this option, the reviewer, after reviewing the work, sends the editor a document with comments during the preparation of the review via e-mail.
Received papers are subject to peer review. The goal of the review is to help the editor in making a decision on whether the paper should be accepted or rejected and to improve the quality of the manuscript through the process of communication with the authors.
The review is doubly anonymous.
Each paper is evaluated by at least two reviewers.
The duration of the review depends on the reviewers themselves, but the magazine SERB LEGAL THOUGHT recommends to its reviewers that the duration of the review should not be longer than four weeks. Reviewers are paid for their work.
The choice of reviewers is at the editor's discretion. Reviewers must have relevant knowledge in the scientific field of the manuscript and must not be from the same institution as the author, nor must they be authors who have recently published publications together (as co-authors) with any of the authors of the submitted paper.
In the main review phase, the editor sends the submitted manuscripts to the e-mails / addresses of two experts in the field. The paper evaluation form contains a checklist to help reviewers cover all aspects that may decide the outcome of the review. In the last part of the evaluation form, reviewers must include observations and suggestions aimed at improving the submitted manuscript; remarks are later sent to the authors, without the names of the reviewers.
Throughout the process, the reviewers act independently of each other. Reviewers do not know the identity of other reviewers. If the reviewers' decisions are not the same (accept / reject), the editor-in-chief can ask for the opinion of other reviewers.
Reviewers should inform the editor if they notice any violation of the ethical and scientific code in the paper. Reviewers should identify relevant sources not considered in the paper and alert the editor to significant similarities between the reviewed paper and any other published paper or manuscript under review in another journal or collection, if they are aware of it. Reviewers should also alert the editor that the same manuscript has been submitted for publication to another journal or proceedings, if they are aware of it. Reviewers can recommend the citation of certain references, but not require the citation of papers, if there is no scientific justification for this. The reviewer is obliged to subsequently review the manuscript that has been modified according to his suggestions and comments, if it is required to return the manuscript for re-review.
During the review process, the editor may request the authors to submit additional information (including primary data), if it is necessary to make a judgment about the scientific contribution of the manuscript. The editor and reviewers must keep such information confidential and must not use it for personal gain.
The editors are obliged to ensure the quality control of the review. In case the authors have serious and well-founded objections to the review, the editors will check whether the review is objective and meets academic standards. If there is doubt about the objectivity or quality of the review, the editor will seek the opinion of other reviewers.
The reviewer proposes the categorization of the paper: 1) original scientific paper, 2) review scientific paper; 3) previous announcement and 4) scientific criticism, i.e. polemic or review.
An original scientific paper must necessarily contain: the scientific context of the problem, with reference to the relevant results of previous research and relevant literature, corpus, research methods and objectives, and, after analyzing the researched problem, clearly present the results in the conclusion. In the review, it should be stated if any of these elements are missing in the paper. This type of paper should offer an original contribution, which, among other things, includes testing or developing a new theory, testing and developing hypotheses, developing new concepts or criticizing existing ones, new insights into existing archival material or the treatment of previously unknown archival material, and empirical research such as surveys of public opinions, interviews, focus groups, etc.
A review scientific paper provides a comprehensive and critical presentation of a specific problem and relevant literature, a new synthesis of scientific information, points out the similarities, differences and shortcomings in the existing literature and should also contain the author's theoretically based position. This type of paper has a more synthetic and less analytical character. This type of paper may include an exhaustive review of previous literature, court practice or regulations, with own insights and suggestions for further research, but it may also contain the backbone of the research, critical views of current research questions, and a detailed description of the research material.
The previous announcement is an original scientific paper, but of a smaller scope or preliminary character where some elements of the original scientific work may be omitted, and it is a summary presentation of the results of a completed original research paper or a paper that is still under construction.
Scientific criticism, that is, a polemic or review is a discussion on a certain scientific topic, based exclusively on scientific argumentation, in which the author proves the correctness of a certain criterion of his opinion, that is, confirms or refutes the findings of other authors.
The reviewer proposes to the Editorial Board:
1) to accept paper without modification - if the manuscript is suitable for publication in the given form,
2) that the paper should be accepted for publication with the condition that parts of the paper are shortened, reworked or omitted - without sending it for re-review,
3) that the paper should be accepted for publication with the condition that parts of the paper are shortened, reworked or omitted - with return for re-review,
4) that the paper is not accepted for publication.
In the case of recommending revision of the paper, the reviewer states: a) changes that must be made in order for the paper to be published, b) changes that are recommended but not necessary. In case it is proposed that the paper is not accepted for publication, an explanation must be given.
Reviewers are not expected to do proofreading of the paper, but it is recommended that they indicate if they think it is necessary to proofread the paper.
