ETNOLOŠKA TRIBINA

Journal of Croatian Ethnological Society

MANUSRCIPT REVIEW FORM[1]

Data on reviewed manuscript

Title of the manuscript:

______

Date the manuscript is received for review:

______

Date of the submission of the review:

______

Peer reviewer warrants that his/her report will be prompt, confidential, and objective, free of personal or professional bias.

Assistance

Peer review should assist the editor in making editorial decisions and the author in improving the manuscript.

Timelines

Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

Objectivity and fairness

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Any personal criticism of the author is inacceptable and will be lead toward the review to be discarded. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Plagiarism awareness

Reviewers should check and identify if possible any form of plagiarism or academic misconduct in citing while reviewing a submitted manuscript. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Conflict of interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

DATA ON REVIEWER (this part will not be shown to the author)

Name, Title, Position:

Affiliation:

Address, Telephone, E-mail:

Suggestion for classification (please underline one category)

Original scientific paper is a full-length article reporting the results of original research and/or developing a theoretical approach. The former contains as yet unpublished results of original research and a full description of methodology, data and interpretation, presented in accordance with the professional and scholarly standards. The latter contains a systematic critical overview including meta-analyses, and its originality depends on its focus, scope, and argumentation in relation to current theories.

Preliminary communicationcontains as yet unpublished preliminary results of original research in progress, or a theoretical formulation of the problem and a proposal for its solution, without the more extended theoretical development or detailed analysis characteristic of original scientific papers.

Review articlepresents a concise survey of the current status and trends in a scholarly area, or with regard to a theoretical issue or a research topic.

Professional papermakes a valuable professional contribution to the field, which may include presenting new material (without a complete theoretical, methodological or analytical treatment), applying published research results in practice or disseminating them (for educational purposes), or presenting a concise critical review of a selected current issue. Professional papers should be written to be accessible to a broad audience and not only to specialists in the given subject.

Suggestion for publication(please underline one category)

1. Accept the manuscript in its present form

2. Accept after attending to reviewer’s minor corrections

3. Accept after attending to reviewer’s major corrections

4. A considerable or complete revision is needed(the reviewer will be asked to review the revised manuscript)

5. Reject

Reviewer’s comments

(Please take as much space as you need for narrative comment)

Please provide clear explanation and argumentation for each of your suggestions regarding classification and publication. Generally: comment on the importance of the research subject, the validity of employed theories, methods and presentation, the suitability in the treatment of the material, sources and literature, the validity of conclusions, the originality of the paper and its scholarly contribution. The commentary should aim at helping the author(s) to revise the paper, if necessary. Rejection of the paper has to be clearly explained and argued. The reviewer's comments will be shown to the author without revealing the name of the reviewer.

1

[1] This form and some other aspects of the editorial policy have been prepared in accordance with the procedures recommended in the document entitled Standard uredničkog rada [Editorial Standards] (