Skip to main content

Review Policy

GENERAL SECTION

The policy for double blind peer review of scientific materials received for publication in the "Security and Defense" Scientific Journal, a publication of Vasil Levski National Military University (referred to as the Peer Review Policy for short) is intended to establish the procedure, criteria and format for peer review on the basis of the fundamental principles of ethical conduct and integrity of scientific research.

The Peer Review Policy was developed and complied with the established national and international standards and recommendations for double blind peer review and the Ethical Rules for publication in the Security and Defense Scientific Journal.

The Peer Review Policy is consistent with the mission, goals and objectives of the journal and is mandatory for all reviewers of publications in the journal Security and Defense, who certify the absence of conflict of interest, affiliation and compliance with the requirement of confidentiality of review with a model statement.

DOUBLE BLIND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURE

The Peer Review procedure sets the key rules for objective, credible, independent, impartial and timely review of received manuscripts for publication, previously checked by the editorial board for compatibility with the thematic areas of the journal, the presence of scientific value, compliance with the technical and time parameters for submission and publication.

The Peer Review Procedure ensures the applicability of the creative, academic, professional and scholarly approach to author-reviewer-editor collaboration and high quality and integrity of research. A necessary element of this whole process is the constructive, academic and professional criticism of the reviewers, motivating the author of the manuscript.

The selection of reviewers is from the list of reviewers according to their professional and expert profile, which corresponds to the thematic areas of the journal.

Submitted manuscripts for publication in the journal are subject to a preliminary review by the editorial board regarding compatibility with the journal's thematic areas, availability of scientific value, compliance with technical and time parameters for submission and publication.

Manuscripts whose author has complied with the above-mentioned requirements are fully accepted or, if omissions have been made in relation to the specified requirements, they are returned to the author for removal of the specified by the editorial board, after which it is again sent to the editorial office.

Manuscripts that do not fully meet the requirements and are found to lack scientific value, which makes them unsuitable for publication in the journal, are rejected, and the author is notified via e-mail.

Manuscripts that have been approved after preliminary review by the editorial board are submitted to two independent reviewers at the suggestion of the journal's Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers who have been selected are notified of the order, criteria, format and deadlines for evaluation and preparation of a review, which deadline is 14 days from receiving the notification of selection.

Reviewers who, within the period specified by the editorial board, no later than 5 days from receiving the selection proposal, refuse to participate in the review, make a written refusal addressed to the Editor-in-Chief with justified reasons – insufficient competence in the subject of the manuscript or inability to reviewing within the deadline, or having a conflict of interest/affiliation, or co-authorship, or other reasons, and other reviewers are selected in their place.

Reviewers who confirm participation in reviewing a given manuscript prepare a review according to the established order, criteria, form and deadline.

The finished reviews are sent to the Editor-in-Chief and the editors, and they contain the corresponding conclusion of the reviewers' assessment. Possible recommendations in the reviews are:

A) positive opinion for final publication of the manuscript in the form submitted for review (ACCEPTANCE);

B) favorable opinion for publication of the manuscript after submission of positive opinion for publication of the manuscript after submission improved version in terms of language, style, images within the additional deadline approved by the reviewers by resolution (ACCEPTANCE WITH MINOR CORRECTIONS);

C) positive opinion for publication of the manuscript after an improved version approved by the reviewers and a report from the author to the editorial board on changes made, reflected recommendations and notes within the additionally specified period (ACCEPTANCE WITH SIGNIFICANT CORRECTIONS MADE);

D) negative opinion for ineligibility for publication of the manuscript (REJECTION).

The review procedure algorithm (Appendix 1 of this policy) can be viewed here.

The responsibilities and obligations of reviewers are outlined in Section V. Duties of Reviewers in the Ethical Rules for Publishing in the “Security and Defense” Scientific Journal.

The reviews prepared and sent to the Editor-in-Chief with the relevant opinions support the editorial board, which together with the Editor-in-Chief make the final decision to approve or reject a manuscript for publication.

In cases where the review of one reviewer is positive and the other reviewer is negative, the decision to publish, reject or further revise the manuscript is made by the editorial board on the proposal of the Editor-in-Chief.

PEER-REVIEW CRITERIA

Peer-Review criteria are pre-defined characteristics for evaluating a manuscript for publication, the presence or absence of which determines its scientific value or lack thereof.

The main criteria for evaluating and reviewing a manuscript for publication are structured by groups:

Group One: Layout

  • structuring the statement, according to the set technical parameters;
  • originality of the research thesis/idea;
  • relevance of the researched issues;
  • a clearly stated and precise objective(s) of scientific research;
  • defined object, subject and admissibility of scientific research;
  • clearly focusing the introduction and conclusion on the research thesis/idea and stated aim/s;
  • knowledge of scientific issues;
  • literature awareness and correctly used for the purposes of the research resources and references;
  • arrangement of the reference, according to BSS;
  • correct citation of primary and secondary sources;
  • level of plagiarism – no more than 25 %;
  • appropriately used and designed according to the technical parameters visualizing resources;

Group Two: Style

  • matching topic(subject) of the publication with the content
  • appropriately selected and used methodology and tools in support of the research objective;
  • linguistic and terminological accuracy;
  • accessibility and comprehensibility;
  • quality translation (if available);
  • clear and complete exposition consistent with academic writing;
  • discussion of the exposition;
  • scientific output and contributions;

Group Three: Grammatical Suitability

  • grammatically correct;
  • correct spelling.

Results and recommendations: Acceptance; Acceptance with minor corrections made; Acceptance with significant corrections made; Rejection.

Reviewer's Comment.

The review form should contain the indicated groups of criteria (Appendix 2), which is filled out electronically. You can download the review form here.