ISSN 2815-4827
Peer Review Policy
All submitted manuscripts undergo double-blind peer-review by two reviewers.
1. Purpose
2. Peer Review Process
3. Reviewer Guidelines
4. Revision and Resubmission
5. Final Decision
6. Ethical Considerations
The peer review process is fundamental to ensuring the quality, integrity, and scholarly validity of the Bulgarian Numismatic Journal (BulgNJ). The purpose of peer review is to evaluate submitted manuscripts objectively and ensure that only high-quality, original, and relevant research contributes to the field of numismatics.
2.1. Initial Screening: Upon receiving a manuscript, the Editor-in-chief performs an initial assessment to ensure it meets the journal's scope and submission guidelines. At this stage, manuscripts may be returned to authors for corrections or declined without external review. Manuscripts that align with the journal's focus proceed to the peer review process.
2.2. Selection of Reviewers: Before assigning reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief consults with members of the Editorial Team and, when appropriate, the Editorial Board to identify qualified experts in the manuscript’s subject area. This collaborative selection process ensures disciplinary relevance, methodological competence, and avoidance of conflicts of interest. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, impartiality, and absence of conflicts of interest with the authors.
Two independent reviewers are invited for each manuscript.
2.3. Double-Blind Peer Review: The peer review process is conducted anonymously (double-blind review) to ensure impartiality. Authors' identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, to minimize biases in the evaluation process.
2.4. Review Criteria: Reviewers assess manuscripts based on originality, significance, methodology, clarity of presentation, and adherence to ethical standards. They provide constructive feedback and recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection based on their evaluation.
2.5. Editorial Decision: The Editor-in-Chief considers the reviewers' comments and makes a decision on acceptance, rejection, or revision. Authors receive detailed feedback to help improve their manuscripts if revisions are suggested.
Based on this assessment, the Editor-in-Chief issues one of the following decisions:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
If the two reviewer recommendations diverge significantly, the Editor-in-Chief may:
- Consult the Editorial Team, or
- Invite an additional reviewer
3.1. Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript and all related information confidentially and refrain from disclosing any details to third parties.
3.2. Objectivity: Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, providing fair, constructive, and unbiased feedback.
3.3. Timeliness: Reviewers should complete their assessments within the agreed-upon timeframe to ensure timely decisions on manuscripts.
4.1. Quality Submission: Authors are expected to submit original, well-written manuscripts that adhere to the journal's submission guidelines. If revisions are required, authors receive anonymized reviewer comments and are asked to revise and resubmit the manuscript.
4.2. Response to Reviewers' Comments: Authors must address reviewers' comments and suggestions adequately when revising their manuscripts.
4.3. Withdrawal of Submissions: The authors reserve the right to withdraw their submissions in the event of dissatisfaction with the comments and suggestions made.
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on acceptance after confirming that:
- All reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed
- The manuscript meets the journal’s academic and ethical standards
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, and proofreading.
The journal adheres to recognized standards of publication ethics. Reviewers and editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and maintain strict confidentiality throughout the process.
