Peer Review Process

Article manuscripts are first reviewed by the editor, who ensures that they fit the scope and focus of the journal before they are sent to peer reviewers. After the editor approves a manuscript for review, it enters a double-blind peer review process in which the author(s) and reviewer(s) remain anonymous.

  1. A confidential review from two reviewers is mandatory in order to publish the article in “Online Journal of Humanities ETAGTSU”.
  2. For each article, 2 anonymous reviewers are chosen by the chief editor, based on the consultations with the members of the editorial board.
  3. A reviewer does not have information about the author of the article, whereas an author of the article does not have information about the reviewer of his/her article.
  4. Reviewers are scholars from various universities worldwide, whose qualifications and academic works are totally in line with the content of the article.
  5. The article is published based on two positive anonymous  reviews.
  6. If the article qualifies for one positive and one negative review, the article is sent to the third reviewer, whose evaluation decides the issue of the publication.
  7. The process of evaluation of the article lasts on average 22 weeks from submission to publication. after receiving the article, however as an exception, the term can be continued for a reasonable time, according to the request of the reviewer.
  8. A reviewer:
    1. Recommends publishing the article as submitted (positive review).
    2. Does not recommend publishing the article (negative review).
    3. The article is a result of quality scientific research, however, the reviewer has important recommendations and the author is given the possibility to revise the article, according to the specified remarks and comments.
  9. A review is positive if the reviewer gives an article at least 51  points, based on the ETAGTSU-evaluation form. 
  10. In case of fewer than 51points, the reviewer provides a negative review or recommends the author to revise it, based on the specific remarks and comments.
  11. If there are remarks and comments from a reviewer, the editorial board suggests the author accept the recommendations or substantiate his/her position. If the author accepts, within the period of two months, he/she revises the article according to the recommendations. The final review of the revised text is made by the same reviewer.
  12. If there are recommending remarks/opinions, consent for the changes done is required from all of the peer.
  13. If the author does not accept the reviewer’s remarks, his/her substantiated position is reviewed by the editorial board, which can make a decision to publish the article or to refuse to publish it.
  14. The decision by the editorial board to publish the article is made based on two positive recommendations, however, this does not guarantee publication, because the final decision to publish is made by the editorial board.