The peer review process aims to ensure the highest possible standard for articles published in JoBS.
The JoBS has a pre-publication double blind reviewing process, whereby both the reviewer and author remain anonymous throughout the process. All interaction between the reviewer and author is mediated by the Editor. Reviews are not published.
The JoBS selects reviewers based on their areas of expertise. Articles are to receive two reviews. Articles may be accepted or rejected on the basis of single review if the situation warrants. For example, if reviewer within a particular area is difficult to find, or if first review has convinced the Editor.
Acceptance on submission. In exceptional cases a manuscript might be accepted on submission by Editor’s decision.
Rejection on submission. Manuscripts may be rejected on submission in case the manuscripts are outside the scope of JoBS, have severe issues with language, are insufficiently original or are factually or scientifically flawed. Articles that are also otherwise flawed to the extent they?it cannot be expected to be fixed within the editorial process can be rejected on submission by the Editor.
Reviewers are asked to assess articles on the following criteria.
- Article’s fit to the stated scope of the journal and overall relevance to the field.
- Originality, insight and do these warrant publication in the Journal on Baltic Security.
- The structure of the paper. Clarity of main idea stated and the consistency of supporting arguments.
- The correct and appropriate use of references.
- Methodological soundness and academic rigor.
- In case of a book review: does the content display sufficient insight and critical distance from the book to justify it as a book review.
Reviews do not include recommendations and corrections on language use and style; however, if reviewers wish to remark on it, it is welcomed. All reviews are given a submission deadline. If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline, an extension will be granted if possible. Author will be notified of any unexpected delays.
Editor may ask the reviewer to clarify their position if need arises. If a review does not meet the content and ethical standards foreseen by the JoBS, the review can be discarded.
If two reviews present dissenting opinions, the Editor will assess the reasons of dissenting reviews. Reviewers might be asked for clarifications to their reasoning. In case of minor differences, Editor will make the final decision. If the issue cannot be solved in this manner, the Editor can ask for supplementary reviews.
In case of major revisions, amended manuscripts might be reverted back to the original reviewers for a second opinion on the same article; alternatively a new review might be invited. In case the revisions are convincing, the Editor can accept, reject or send the manuscript back to the author for further revisions without further reviews.
Reviewers have to notify the Editor in case reviewing the manuscript constitutes a competing or conflict of interest. If a conflict of interest is detected by the Editor, the review might be discarded. Undisclosed conflict of interest might lead to further actions based on the ethics statement and policy. (See Disclosure of Conflict of Interest)
The reviewers are to advise and council the Editor. Editor’s decision upon the article is final.
All appeals and disputes arising from the peer review process will at first instance be addressed to Editor-in-Chief. Editor-in-Chief will rely on JoBS policies for the decision. In case there is no resolution, the issue will be forwarded to the Ethics Committee (See more: Appeals and Complaints)
Peer reviewers should follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer reviewers, COPE Council. 2017. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. September 2017. www.publicationethics.org [Online] 2017. [Cited 05 October 2020] https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf.
Mentored training and counselling is available for reviewers upon request.
The Journal on Baltic Security allows reviewers to display the Journal title if they have reviewed an article for JoBS on sites like Publons, Web of Science and similar. JoBS does not allow reviews nor the article titles to be publicly displayed. Update to Reviewer Recognition policies is pending (due 2023).