Guidelines for Reviewers
- All submitted papers go through a pre-selection procedure conducted by the Editorial Board. The papers that are selected as a result of the above procedure will be reviewed.
- The selected papers are reviewed anonymously by two reviewers. The “GBEJ" Program Board makes every effort to select the most competent and conscientious reviewers in the given field. In special – contentious or complex – cases the Program Board may decide to appoint an additional reviewer, and the final decision regarding publication is made based on the opinions of all the involved reviewers. The reviewers receive anonymous versions of the papers.
- The reviews are in written form (on review sheet).
4. The Managing Editor is responsible for the correspondence with reviewers and sends the Authors the comments regarding their papers in the form of the completed review sheets. The editorial secretary, in consultation with the Program Board, also notifies the Authors of the planned date of publication of their papers.
5. In the last issue of the given year the list of reviewers is published.
Duties of Reviewers
Promptness
A selected reviewer who feels unable to review the work or knows that its review within the deadline set by the editorial secretary will be impossible, should notify the editorial secretary.
Confidentiality
The papers received for review will be treated as confidential documents. They will not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editorial secretary.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should attempt to identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the Authors. Any statement that an observation, source or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editorial secretary's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the paper under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained as a result of the review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider papers in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from relationships or connections with any of the Authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.