Manuscripts are sent for review according to the double-blind referee process. To protect their anonymity in the review process, authors are kindly asked to submit two versions of their manuscript – a version for the editor with the names and affiliation of the authors, and a version for the referees with deleted information that could identify the authors in the manuscript.

The peer review process is expected to be completed within three months.

 

Review Process 

The criteria for the blind peer review are clearly defined and reviewers are timely informed. Each criteria requires additional comments by reviewers. The criteria cover the following issues: aims, relevance, clarity of the claims, research questions or hypothesis, clearly stated methods, theoretical framework, in-depth data analysis, quality of the findings and the discussion sections, logical argumentation, clear organization and originality of the research.

The blind-peer review procedure means collegial anonymous review process during which the members of various academic communities assess the original manuscripts in five stages:

1. The electronically submitted papers are read by the editor-in-chief and the editors of the Journal of Contemporary Philology. The editors accept only the scholarly papers which follow the submission guidelines. Apart from the technical guidelines about the structure and the layout of the papers, the authors should pay attention to the academic language and the consistency of the recommended rules (e.g. tables, charts, references etc.). Only papers that satisfy the academic standards are selected for further review.

2. The next stage involves experts in the fields who review the papers, i.e., double-blind peer review is performed, when neither the author knows the reviewers nor the reviewers know the author.

Under no condition the editors and the reviewers should breach the confidentiality and anonymity until the papers are published. The editor-in-chief in coordination with the other editors of the journal sends each of the received scholarly papers to two domestic or foreign reviewers who have expertise in the field or the discipline. The reviews are written in English or Macedonian. Objective assessment and reviews are expected and all the comments must be based on the clearly defined academic criteria. The reviewers must notify the editors if instances of plagiarism occur. The editors, authors and reviewers must report potential conflict of interest in the subject matter discussed in the manuscript. If the reviews of the two reviewers differ significantly, then the editors contact a third reviewer.

3. The reviewers send the reviewed manuscripts back to the editors who send the papers to the authors. The authors edit their manuscripts and along with the re-submission they should provide a list of implemented corrections and send them back to the editors.

4. The editors send the resubmitted papers to the same reviewers to approve of the revised versions. The editor-in-chief coordinates the communication and decides if any additional revisions are necessary.

5. The members of the editorial board receive all the manuscripts accepted for publication and give the final approval to the editors of the Journal of Contemporary Philology.

 

Publication Ethics

The Journal of Contemporary Philology is committed to maintaining high standards of ethical conduct in agreement with the guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Elsevier’s guidelines for authors, editors, reviewers, and publisher and Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje ethical guidelines.