Instructions for Referees

The editorial board designates three referees - experts in the scientific branch of the contribution. If the referee who has been addressed does not feel competent in the area of the paper or if there are any other reasons that do not allow him to write the review, he rejects writing it and notifies the editor about it. Common deadlines for reviewing are:

  • Time limit for writing/submitting the review - 30 days
  • Time limit for announcing the review rejection - till 7 days.

Referees are asked to evaluate a paper according to the following instructions. Referees are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not a part of the peer review process.

1. General evaluation of paper

In the first part of review please evaluate the paper using the four criteria. Scientific level of paper means the quality of new facts in the paper, as well as the measure of their contribution for the relevant scientific branch. In this part, you will also examine how these new facts are presented and documented in paper. Another aspect to be considered is how the paper matches the generally accepted attributes of paper, including articulation of paper, balance of its parts and correctness of conclusions. Next criteria are Intelligibility of the paper, its Topicality and Stylistic level. Please, fill up the interactive questionnaire and evaluate the paper in terms of these main four quality criteria. Evaluation should be done by selection of an appropriate option in the interactive questionnaire (see the example).

Evaluation levels

2. Paper pertinence/relevance for SPI

The quality to be assessed in this part is if the topic of submitted contribution falls with the scientific area of military, defence and security technologies and equipment and if the paper is acceptable for publishing in Scientific Journal. Evaluation should be done by selection of an appropriate option in the interactive questionnaire.

3. Originality of paper

This point is focused on the originality of the paper - in other words, you will expresses your opinion on whether the paper presents new facts extending the knowledge in the given scientific branch, whether such results have not been published yet by this author or other authors in other periodicals or books. Additionally, you might like to mention other sources dealing with this theme that have not been quoted by the author.

4. Length of paper

In general, the extent of contribution is proportional to the relevance of its content. Recommended number of pages is 15 at maximum.

5. Title of paper

The title of the papers should correspond to its content. If it does not fully correspond to it, you might suggest/recommend its modification.

6. Abstract, keywords

Abstracts and keywords are very important for readers' orientation. Please, study them carefully and if they are not in full accordance with the content of the article recommend a change/modification.

7. Complying with the Instructions for Authors

In this point, you have an opportunity to assess if the author has properly followed the Instructions for Authors.

8. Formal elaboration of paper

The level of formal elaboration is assessed here (see Instructions for Authors). You should focus your attention on the quality of the text and graphic elaboration, correctness of description of equation, figures, graphs, tables, etc. If it is possible, you can also evaluate the language level of the paper. The important attribute of the paper is the way of using and notation of references in sense of the standard of ISO 690.

9. Corrections required and recommended

Please, state clearly what parts or elements of the paper (values, figures, graphs, etc.) are to be corrected. The place for your possible remarks and recommendations is at the end of the interactive questionnaire.

10. Recommendation

The obligatory part of the review is the clear statement that the contribution is

  • recommended to publish without corrections
  • or recommended to publish with partial corrections
  • or recommended to publish after substantial corrections by author
  • or not recommended to publish.

11. Objections, remarks and recommendations

Should you have any factual objections, remarks and/or recommendations for paper correction, please write them and indicate if the correction is necessary (N) or recommended (R).