Peer-Review

Peer-Review Policy

Review Model

The journal operates a double-anonymous peer-review system, meaning that neither authors nor reviewers are informed of each other's identities during the evaluation process. To support this procedure, authors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts do not contain information that could reveal their identity, either explicitly or through indirect references. 

Initial Editorial Assessment

Every submission undergoes an initial examination conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or another editor appointed for this purpose. During this stage, manuscripts are considered in relation to:

§  the aims and scope of the journal;

§  originality and scholarly relevance;

§  academic quality and contribution;

§  compliance with Author Guidelines;

§  adherence to ethical standards in research and publishing.

Submissions that fail to satisfy these criteria may be declined before external review. Manuscripts that successfully pass this preliminary evaluation are assigned to a handling editor, who coordinates the subsequent review process.

Reviewer Selection and Evaluation Process

Scholarly manuscripts are normally assessed by a minimum of two independent experts in the relevant field.

The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor appoints reviewers on the basis of several considerations, including:

§  demonstrated knowledge of the manuscript's subject area;

§  capacity to provide a thorough and timely review;

§  freedom from conflicts of interest;

§  suitable institutional independence from the author(s) when appropriate.

Members of the Editorial Board may be invited to review manuscripts provided that they possess the necessary expertise and have no competing interests. Nevertheless, the journal does not rely solely on editorial board members or editorial staff for peer review. Reviewers are generally requested to submit their assessments within thirty days of accepting the invitation.

Criteria Used in Peer Review

Reviewers are invited to provide an assessment of the manuscript with reference to the following aspects:

§  significance and originality of the contribution;

§  suitability for publication within the journal's scope;

§  engagement with relevant literature and theoretical framework;

§  appropriateness and robustness of the methodology, including reproducibility where relevant;

§  quality, reliability, and interpretation of data;

§  validity of the discussion and conclusions;

§  compliance with ethical principles;

§  clarity, organization, and overall presentation of the manuscript.

Reviewer reports should be impartial, evidence-based, and constructive. All information encountered during the review process must remain confidential and may not be used for personal benefit or shared with third parties.

Editorial Decisions

After consideration of the reviewer reports and editorial evaluation, one of the following outcomes may be assigned:

§  acceptance for publication;

§  acceptance subject to minor revisions;

§  invitation to undertake major revisions followed by further assessment;

§  rejection.

Where revisions are requested, authors must address the comments provided and clearly indicate the changes made to the manuscript. Depending on the extent and nature of the revisions, the revised version may be re-examined by the original reviewers or evaluated directly by the handling editor.

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial process but do not determine the final outcome. The handling editor considers all review reports and submits a recommendation. The ultimate publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or another editor who is free from any conflict of interest relating to the submission.

Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Impartiality

Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to disclose any circumstances, relationships, or interests that could reasonably affect, or be perceived as affecting, the objective assessment of a manuscript.

Reviewers should decline review invitations whenever personal, professional, institutional, collaborative, or financial interests could compromise their independence.

Editors must not oversee or make decisions regarding:

§  manuscripts they have authored or co-authored;

§  submissions involving close collaborators or individuals with whom they have a relevant competing interest;

§  any manuscript where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

In these situations, editorial responsibility is reassigned to another suitably qualified editor with no competing interests.

Submissions authored by members of the Editorial Board or by researchers affiliated with the Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania are handled according to exactly the same peer-review and editorial standards applied to all other manuscripts. Such papers are managed by an independent editor and reviewed by external experts. Institutional affiliation plays no role in editorial decision-making.

Confidentiality and Publication Ethics

The journal treats submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, and related correspondence as confidential materials.

Reviewers are encouraged to notify the editor if they identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, unethical research conduct, substantial overlap with previously published work, or any other matter that may raise concerns about research integrity.

In addressing ethical issues, disputes, complaints, and allegations of misconduct, the journal follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision if they believe that a significant procedural error occurred during review or editorial assessment.

Any appeal should include a detailed explanation of the grounds for reconsideration. Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or, where necessary due to a conflict of interest, by another editor who was not involved in the original decision.

Concerns related to editorial practices, publication ethics, or declarations of competing interests are investigated and resolved in accordance with the journal's ethics procedures and relevant COPE guidance.