Peer-review is anonimous. Peer-reviewer enters his/her personal data in the online form (i.e. personal name, family name, name of an institution he/ she is employed with), as well as data on the peer-reviewed text (i.e. text name) and submits proposals on text publishing and brings out his/her professional opinion (expertise), classifies the text into proper categories and, at the end, puts the date on the peer-review with his/her own signature.
Giving an expert opinion implies expertise on following matters:
-    in which scope does a peer-reviewed text present an original scientific contribution based on the findings of contemporary science;
-    are there texts (works) of similar content (quality);
-    does a text satisfy methodological requirements (adequate title and subtitle, key words, etc.);
-    was the adequate (actual) literature used;
-    was a text set forth systematically and clearly (in conceptual and linguistic sense).

Upon a given expert opinion, a peer-reviewer submits proposals on text publishing. If a peer-review has been positive, a peer-reviewer classifies the text in one of the following categories of scientific works:  

1. Original scientific article
2. Review article
3. Short scientific article
4. Professional article
5. Published scientific/professional conference contribution
6. Critique, polemic, discussion

A reviewer uses Typology of document/works for bibliography management in COBISS when gives his/ her professional opinion.    

June 10th 2008.


ARTICLES AND OTHER COMPONENT PARTS

1.01. Original scientific article

 

An original scientific article is only the first-time publication of original research results in a way that allows the research to be repeated and the findings checked. As a rule, it follows the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) scheme for experimental research, or it is organised in a descriptive way for descriptive scientific areas. The article must be published in scientific journal with a peer-review system of accepting articles and must be peer-reviewed. The peer-review system must be evident from the instructions for authors.

Conference contributions, even if published in scientific journal, do not fall into this category, but must be put into categories 1.06 or 1.08.

1.02. Review article

A review article is an overview of the latest works in a specific subject area, the works of an individual researcher or a group of researchers with a purpose of summarasing, analysing, evaluating or synthesising the information that has already been published. A review article brings new syntheses, which also include the results of the author's own research. The review article must be published in a scientific journal with a peer-view system of accepting articles and must be peer-viewed. The peer-review system must be evident from the instructions for authors.

Conference contributions, even if published in scientific journal, do not fall into this category, but must be put into categories 1.06 or 1.08.

1.03. Short scientific article

A short scientific article is an original scientific article, in which some of the elements of the IMRAD scheme may be omitted. It briefly summarises the findings of a completed original reserach work or a research work in progress. Also included in this category are mini reviews and preliminary publications, if they have the characteristics of a short scientific article.

Conference contributions, even if published in scientific journal, do not fall into this category, but must be put into categories 1.06 or 1.08.

1.04. Professional article

A professional article is a presentation of what is already known, with the emphasis on the applicability of original research results and the dissemination of knowledge, while the complexity of the text is adapted to the needs of the users and readers of the professional or scientific journal, in which the said article is published.

Conference contributions, even if published in scientific journal, do not fall into this category, but must be put into categories 1.07 or 1.09.
    
1.08. Published scientific conference contribution

A published scientific conference contribution (lecture, presentation, poster), published as whole in the separate conference proceedings, in a scientific journal or on the conference's or conference organiser's website. The published contribution should, in principle at least, be organised as a scientific article.

Peer-reviewing according to the criteria for original scientific articles or review articles and/or independent scientific component parts in monographs is assessed based on the typology of the conference proceedings, which can be an independent monograph, a regular or special journal issue, a supplement or a web resource.

Abstracts and extended abstracts or published transparencies do not fall into this category (see 1.12).    

1.09. Published professional conference contribution

A published professional conference contribution (lecture, presentation, poster), published as a whole in a separate conference proceedings, in a professional (or scientific) journal or on the conference's or conference organiser's website.

Abstracts and extended abstracts or published transparencies do not fall into this category (see 1.13).    

1.19. Review, book review, critique

A contribution in a scientific or professional publication (journal, book, etc.), in which the author evaluates or proves the correctness/ incorrectness of a scientific or professional work, criterion, opinion or finding and/or disputes/supports/assesses the findings, works or opinions of the other authors. The display of an expert opinion, a critique of scientific, professional or artistic work, in particularly in terms of its quality.

1.21. Polemic, discussion

A contribution, in which the author proves the correctness of a specific criterion, his/her opinion or findings and disputes the findings or opinions of other authors.