Reviewers are obliged to provide the editor with a professional, well-argued, impartial assessment of the scientific value of articles within the given deadlines. <\/p>\n\n
Reviewers evaluate articles in relation to the compliance of the articles\u2019 topic with the journal\u2019s profile, the relevance of the researched area and applied methods, the originality and scientific relevance of the data presented in manuscripts, the style of scientific presentation, and the use of scientific apparatus in the text.<\/p>\n\n
A reviewer who has well-founded suspicions or knowledge of ethical standards\u2019 violations by an author is obliged to inform the editor about it. A reviewer should recognize important published works not cited by their authors. He should also alert the editor to significant similarities and coincidences between manuscripts under consideration or of any other published articles or manuscripts that are in the review process in another journal if he\/she has personal knowledge of this fact. If a reviewer has knowledge that the same manuscript is being considered in several journals at the same time, the reviewer is obliged to inform the editor about it.<\/p>\n\n
A reviewer must not have a conflict of interest with authors or a research financier. If there is a conflict of interest, a reviewer is obliged to inform the editor about it immediately.<\/p>\n\n
If a reviewer believes he or she is incompetent for the topic or area of the manuscript, the editor must be notified immediately. <\/p>\n\n
Reviews must be objective. The judgment of reviewers must be clear and supported by arguments.<\/p>\n\n
Manuscripts sent to reviewers are considered confidential documents. Reviewers may not use unpublished material from submitted manuscripts for their research without the express written permission of the authors, and information and ideas expressed in submitted manuscripts must be preserved as confidential and may not be used for personal gain.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Reviewers responsibilities Reviewers are obliged to provide the editor with a professional, well-argued, impartial assessment of the scientific value of articles within the given deadlines. Reviewers evaluate articles in relation to the compliance of the articles\u2019 topic with the journal\u2019s profile, the relevance of the researched area and applied methods, the originality and scientific relevance […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1504","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"blocksy_meta":{"styles_descriptor":{"styles":{"desktop":"","tablet":"","mobile":""},"google_fonts":[],"version":6}},"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/medjunarodnapolitika.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1504","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/medjunarodnapolitika.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/medjunarodnapolitika.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medjunarodnapolitika.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medjunarodnapolitika.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1504"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/medjunarodnapolitika.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1504\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/medjunarodnapolitika.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1504"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}