Guidelines for reviewers


Title of the article  
Scientific title  
Institution, city, state  
Scientist’s register number  
Date when you received
the article for review
Date when you submitted the review  

       Note :
       Please give concise and reasoned scientific-methodological remarks in the table below. Confidential comments for the editor can be written at the end of the form, column no. 11. The review is anonymous for the authors. You can send it by e-mail.


Questions for  reviewers Yes/No N o t e
Is the topic scientifically relevant considering the journal profile?    
Is the topic scientifically relevant and useful?    
The article's title reflects the content and purpose of the article    
The abstract is concise and relevant (up to 150-200 words)    
The key words provide adequate index entry for the article (up to 5 words)    
The introduction contains a clearly stated objectives    
 Is the scientific argument logical and persuasive?    
Are the empirical research results methodologically correctly presented? Give possible suggestions in case you think some amendments and refinements are needed.    
Conclusions illustrate the research results, findings and recommendations showing what is new and giving suggestions for future research    
An extensive overview of the issue provides evidence and counterevidence of the author’s own findings and research results    
 Should some parts of the article be shortened,  deleted, extended or refined?    
Would you recommend some refinements in terms of  style or language?    
The references used are up-to date and the format of the citations is in Harvard style    
Is the article in compliance with the Instructions for authors, i.e. are the abstract, key words, literature, references and table and figure marks written upon the instructions (given at     
Which category the article belongs to (circle one)
  1. original scientific paper
  2. preliminary communication
  3. review
  4. professional article
Recommendation for the editor (circle one)
  1. to  be published without changes
  2. to be published after minor changes
  3. to be published after significant changes
  4. to be rejected
Reviewer’s additional opinions, remarks and recommendations:
Confidential remarks for the editor:

   Reviewer’s signature


Download guidelines

phone (+ 382) 67 663 327 
e-mail: (editor)