Editorial Process

The Editorial Process

Scientific Journal of Maritime Research – Pomorstvo promotes a rigorous, transparent, efficient, and fair peer review process, handled and performed by renowned scientists, researchers, and scholars.

Journal’s peer review is a single-blind assessment with at least two independent reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision by the academic editor (i.e., Editor-in-Chief or another editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief). The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process.

Every submitted manuscript follows the steps of precheck, peer review, and decision on acceptance.

The precheck consists of a technical precheck performed by the Executive Editor and an academic precheck performed by an academic editor. The technical precheck includes a plagiarism check and a check to see if all the required documents are uploaded. The academic precheck consists of assessing whether the manuscript fits within the journal’s aims and scopes, whether it adheres to the ethical standards, and whether it can withstand academic rigour in the subsequent peer review stage. The academic editor can reject the manuscript at this stage, request amendments before peer review, or continue with the peer review process and recommend suitable reviewers.

A dedicated Editorial board member coordinates the review process during the peer review stage. The process is single-blind (i.e., the author does not know the reviewer's identity, but the reviewer knows the author's identity). At least two reviews are collected for each submission. The academic editor suggests the reviewers, chosen from the journal’s database of reviewers or new reviewers identified as authors of relevant papers.

The reviewers should hold no conflicts of interest with any of the authors; should not share the affiliation as the authors; should hold a PhD; should have relevant experience and a publication record in the submission field.

Reviewers have 15 days to finish their review, but extensions can be granted upon request. Reviewers can suggest: accept the submission; revisions are required; submission must be resubmitted; or decline the submission.

Where conflicting review reports are submitted, or where there is one or more recommendations for rejection, the academic editor decides about the possible revision or decline. The academic editor may request additional reviewers or further review reports at this stage.

Revised manuscripts may or may not be sent to reviewers, depending on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version. By default, reviewers who ask that the submission be resubmitted will be sent the revised manuscript. Authors are given 30 days to revise their manuscripts, but extensions can be granted on request.

Suppose the journal cannot communicate with the author during the manuscript review or production stage. In that case, the journal reserves the right to withdraw the manuscript following a designated 30-day period of inactivity.

The academic editor decides on acceptance of the manuscript after the peer review stage. The academic editor can select from the following options: accept the submission; revisions are required; submission must be resubmitted; or decline the submission. The academic editor is independent in his work, without pressure from the journal's publisher.

The academic editor should alert the Editorial Board to potential conflicts of interest that may be biased or perceived as biased in decision-making. The academic editor should not recommend self-citations, honorary citations, or citations of the journal’s papers. Any citation manipulation is considered misconduct and a violation of publication ethics.

Members of the journal’s team perform production on all manuscripts, including language editing and copyediting. If desired by the authors, language editing is carried out by professional English editing staff, specialized in maritime English.

The Editorial Process

Scientific Journal of Maritime Research – Pomorstvo promotes a rigorous, transparent, efficient, and fair peer review process, handled and performed by renowned scientists, researchers, and scholars.

Journal’s peer review is a single-blind assessment with at least two independent reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision by the academic editor (i.e., Editor-in-Chief or another editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief). The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process.

Every submitted manuscript follows the steps of precheck, peer review, and decision on acceptance.

The precheck consists of a technical precheck performed by the Executive Editor and an academic precheck performed by an academic editor. The technical precheck includes a plagiarism check and a check to see if all the required documents are uploaded. The academic precheck consists of assessing whether the manuscript fits within the journal’s aims and scopes, whether it adheres to the ethical standards, and whether it can withstand academic rigour in the subsequent peer review stage. The academic editor can reject the manuscript at this stage, request amendments before peer review, or continue with the peer review process and recommend suitable reviewers.

A dedicated Editorial board member coordinates the review process during the peer review stage. The process is single-blind (i.e., the author does not know the reviewer's identity, but the reviewer knows the author's identity). At least two reviews are collected for each submission. The academic editor suggests the reviewers, chosen from the journal’s database of reviewers or new reviewers identified as authors of relevant papers.

The reviewers should hold no conflicts of interest with any of the authors; should not share the affiliation as the authors; should hold a PhD; should have relevant experience and a publication record in the submission field.

Reviewers have 15 days to finish their review, but extensions can be granted upon request. Reviewers can suggest: accept the submission; revisions are required; submission must be resubmitted; or decline the submission.

Where conflicting review reports are submitted, or where there is one or more recommendations for rejection, the academic editor decides about the possible revision or decline. The academic editor may request additional reviewers or further review reports at this stage.

Revised manuscripts may or may not be sent to reviewers, depending on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version. By default, reviewers who ask that the submission be resubmitted will be sent the revised manuscript. Authors are given 30 days to revise their manuscripts, but extensions can be granted on request.

Suppose the journal cannot communicate with the author during the manuscript review or production stage. In that case, the journal reserves the right to withdraw the manuscript following a designated 30-day period of inactivity.

The academic editor decides on acceptance of the manuscript after the peer review stage. The academic editor can select from the following options: accept the submission; revisions are required; submission must be resubmitted; or decline the submission. The academic editor is independent in his work, without pressure from the journal's publisher.

The academic editor should alert the Editorial Board to potential conflicts of interest that may be biased or perceived as biased in decision-making. The academic editor should not recommend self-citations, honorary citations, or citations of the journal’s papers. Any citation manipulation is considered misconduct and a violation of publication ethics.

Members of the journal’s team perform production on all manuscripts, including language editing and copyediting. If desired by the authors, language editing is carried out by professional English editing staff, specialized in maritime English.