The Editorial Board requires reviewers to read the following guidelines before preparing the review, and strongly recommends that authors and peer reviewers familiarise themselves with the Submissions and Publication Ethics pages before committing to the publication process.
According to the publication policy of the Annual of Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski" - Faculty of History, all manuscripts, with the exception of reviews and Editor's notices, which are sent to the Editorial Board, and have passed the initial evaluation process (see: Submissions), must undergo a peer-review process. In accordance with the values and standards held by the members of the Editorial Board, the review process is double-blind, i.e. the anonymity of both the reviewer and the author of the manuscript is guaranteed. The Editorial Board undertakes to state explicitly if a different peer review method is to be used for a manuscript. The review process is carried out by at least two independent scholars, experts in the field of the manuscript, selected by the respective Section Editor. Reviewers may be members of the Editorial Board whose scientific field is appropriate to the manuscript. The editor must avoid any possible conflict of interest, e.g. competing relationships or relationships with any of the authors, companies or institutions associated with the manuscript.
The initial evaluation and review process must be completed within three months. If this period needs to be extended, the authors will be informed of the reason for the delay and the expected time. The Editorial Board reminds authors that they have the option of withdrawing their manuscript if the review process is delayed.
The Editorial Board reminds authors that during these steps there may be ongoing communication between all parties involved, in the form of comments, so they are advised to regularly check their communication channels – the OJS system and their respective academic email addresses. This is necessary to ensure clarity and accountability during the reveiw and publication process, and to facilitate adherence to deadlines for all parties involved.
If a reviewer is unable to use the OJS system, he/she can send their review to the Journal's email address instead. In doing so, he/she automatically delegates the rights to process his/her review to the Technical Assistant. In this case, the Technical Assistant undertakes to communicate with the Editor-in-Chief, and to ensure the anonymity of the review.
Role of the peer reviewers
Since reviewers play a vital role in ensuring the integrity of any scholarly publication, they are expected to behave responsibly and ethically. Reviewers should subscribe to the fundamental principles (see: Publication Ethics) of the Annual and must demonstrate a willingness and commitment to participate in the publication of the Journal.
By accepting the role of a reviewer, the scholar agrees to treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. This means that they should not be shown to or discussed with anyone not authorised by the Editor-in-Chief (except in exceptional or specific circumstances). This rule also applies to invited reviewers who decline the invitation to review the manuscript.
The reviewer warrants that if he/she feels unqualified to review the manuscript or is unable to do so within the specified time frame, he/she will immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation so that another reviewer can be selected.
Any invited reviewer who believes that a conflict of interest may arise, or who suspects a connection with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript, must immediately inform the editors to facilitate the selection of another reviewer.
As peer review is an essential element of formal scholarly communication and a cornerstone of the scholarly enterprise, reviewers, through the diligent performance of their duties, assist the editors in making editorial decisions. This implies that the correspondence between the editor and the reviewer should be transparent and ethical, so that the subsequent communication between the editor and the author(s) can be beneficial to the improvement of the manuscripts.
If the editor in charge sends the manuscript back to the reviewer for linguistic editing (i.e. grammatical, punctuation or technical errors), the reviewer must do his/her best to comply with the Journal’s policy in a timely manner, respecting the deadlines set. Linguistic editing does not mean changing the intellectual attributes of the review. If the review contains language that does not comply with the Journal’s ethical guidelines, the editor reserves the right to reject the review. Editors do not redact or edit reviews in any way, but as they are obliged to provide reviews that are not discriminatory, derogatory, offensive or unethical in content, they have the right to withhold them. In this case, another reviewer must be assigned to the manuscript.
The reviewer undertakes to carry out the peer review objectively and to state conclusions clearly and with supporting evidence so that the authors can use them to improve the manuscript. Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.
If the reviewer(s) identify texts used but not cited by the authors, he/she must inform the editors immediately. The same applies to any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and another manuscript of which they are aware.
Unpublished material described in the submitted manuscript should not be used for research purposes by reviewers without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained in the course of peer review must remain confidential and may not be used for personal purposes by reviewers. This also applies to reviewers who decline an invitation to review a manuscript.
Reviewers are asked to categorise the paper as immediately publishable, publishable with modifications, or not publishable. This means that the reviewers' evaluations must explicitly recommend the disposition of the manuscript. The reviewer’s feedback will then be communicated to the author for appropriate action.
Reviewers shall receive recognition for successfully completing a review, which is seen as a contribution to their professional development and recognition and can be reported in the appropriate institutions. Reviewers do not receive financial compensation for writing a review.
Post-review process
Upon successful completion of the peer review process, the manuscript is sent for editing, copyediting and pre-printing for inclusion in the next issue of the Annual. This is by no means a guarantee that the article will be published, as other issues may arise during these steps. The editors, including the language editor, the copy editor, and any other person involved in the publication process, reserve the right to suspend publication of the article if serious errors are discovered. The above also undertake not to rescind any decision to publish unless the principles of the Annual have been flagrantly violated.
The Annual of Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski" - Faculty of History is an annual journal, which is usually published at the end of the astronomical year, so that every article that has successfully undergone the process of peer review within the appropriate deadlines for subsequent editing, proofreading and pre-printing is included in the upcoming issue. If the deadlines are not met, the article will be published in the following issue.
The Editorial board of the Annual of Sofia University - Faculty of History announces the acceptance of academic articles, studies and reviews for its new volume, vol. 108. According to the adopted rules, which you can read in detail on the journal's website, the volume of manuscripts is unlimited. We ask that you strictly adhere to the requirements for citing and acknowledging the archival sources and literature used.
Faculty of History | Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski"
15 Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd.
1000 Sofia, Bulgaria
e-ISSN: 3033-0262
ISSN: 0204-4005
GSU-IF | Citation Stylesheet (CSL)
