Guidelines for Authors

Please consider our guidelines for authors, reviewers, and editors

Manuscripts should be submitted in English to the editorial office in two double-spaced copies and should be accompanied by an indicative abstract of 100 to 200 words.

The text should be structure by numbered subheadings. It should contain (a) an Introduction, giving an overview and stating the purpose, (b) a main body, describing in sufficient detail the materials or methods used and the results or ideas developed, and (c) a conclusion or summary.

Criteria for acceptance will be appropriateness to the field of the journal Scope and Aims, taking into account the merit of the contents and presentation. The manuscript should be concise and should conform to professional standards of English usage and grammar. Manuscripts are received with the understanding that they have not been previously published, are not being submitted for publication elsewhere, and that if the work received official sponsorship, it has been duly released for publication. Submissions are referred, and authors will usually be notified within 6 to 8 weeks. Unless specifically requested, manuscripts and illustrations will not be returned.

Title page. The title page should list (1) the article; (2) the author's name and affiliation at the time the work has conducted; (3) corresponding author's address, telephone and FAX numbers and e-mail address, if available; (4) a concise running title.

Abstract. An abstract should be submitted that does not exceed 200 words in length. This should be typed on a separate sheet following the title page.

Reference citations with the text should have the following form: (author, year). For example, (Kent, 1949). Specific page numbers are optional e.g. (Kent, 1949, p. 56). A citation with two authors would read (Shulsky & Godson, 1991); three or more authors would be: (Smith et al., 1995). When the author is mentioned in the text, only the date and optional page number should appear in parenthesis - e.g. According to Kent (1949),...

References should be listed alphabetically by author at the end of the article. Journal names should not be abbreviated. Multiple citations by the same author should be listed chronological and should each spell out the author's name. Articles appearing in the same year should have the following format: Smith, M. (1995a) ..., Smith, M. (1995b) ...

Examples:

  • Journal reference: Alexander, M. S. (1988). Introduction: Knowing Your Friends, Assessing Your Allies - Perspectives on Intra-Alliance Intelligence. Intelligence and National Security, 13(1). 1-17.
  • Edited book reference: Gries, D. D. (1995). New Links Between Intelligence and Policy. In H. B. Westerfield (ed.). Inside CIA's Private World. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
  • Book reference: Andrew, C. (1985). Secret Service: The Making of the British Intelligence Community. London: Sceptre.
  • Conference paper reference: Habsburg, O. v. (1998). A Security Policy for Europe. In M. Sopta & M. Marnika (eds.). Croatia as a Stabilizing Factor For Peace In Europe: Proceedings from an International Symposium Held in Zagreb, Croatia 11 - 14 April 1996. Zagreb: Croatian Centre of Strategic Studies. 27-34.

Book reviews should be preceded by full publication details including price: eg. Adams, J. (1998). The next World War: The warriors and weapons of the new battlefields in Cyberspace. London: Hutchinson. Pp. 366, biblio., index. L 18.99. ISBN 0-09-180232-6.

Footnotes should be kept to a minimum. They should be indicated in the text with numbered superscripts, and the corresponding notes should be collected at the end of the article, before the references, under the heading Notes.

Illustrations should be kept to the necessary minimum. Graphs and diagrams should be supplied as black and white drawings suitable for reproduction. Half-tone illustrations should be sharp, well-contrasted glossy prints. Illustrations should be numbered lightly with a soft pencil on the back, and a numbered legend should be attached on a separate sheet. Clear copies of the illustrations should accompany the submitted manuscript, but camera-ready originals should not be sent until requested by the editor. Tables should contain a number and a title at the top, and all columns and rows should have headings. All illustrations should be cited in the text as Figure 1, Figure 2, etc. or Table 1, Table 2, etc.

Upon acceptance of a manuscript for publication, authors have to provide a one-paragraph biographical sketch.

 

We strongly recommend using the following article submission template.

Click for download MS Word Document

You can upload your paper for a review using this link: https://review.nsf-journal.hr/

Upload papers for review

 

 

Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (extract)

https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

Peer review in all its forms plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust, and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and unaware of their ethical obligations. COPE has produced some guidelines which set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process in research publication. The aim has been to make them generic so that they can be applied across disciplines.

Peer reviewers play a role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The peer review process depends to a large extent on the trust and willing participation of the scholarly community and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer review process, but may come to the role without any guidance and be unaware of their ethical obligations. Journals have an obligation to provide transparent policies for peer review, and reviewers have an obligation to conduct reviews in an ethical and accountable manner. Clear communication between the journal and the reviewers is essential to facilitate consistent, fair and timely review. COPE has heard cases from its members related to peer review issues and bases these guidelines, in part, on the collective experience and wisdom of the COPE Forum participants. It is hoped they will provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for editors and publishers in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.

Peer review, for the purposes of these guidelines, refers to reviews provided on manuscript submissions to journals, but can also include reviews for other platforms and apply to public commenting that can occur pre- or post-publication. Reviews of other materials such as preprints, grants, books, conference proceeding submissions, registered reports (preregistered protocols), or data will have a similar underlying ethical framework, but the process will vary depending on the source material and the type of review requested. The model of peer review will also influence elements of the process.

Evaluation process

First step in evaluation of received papers is editor-in-chief. The editor-in-chief will also do a plagiarism-checking (in cooperation with University North). If editor-in-chief is not satisfied with the paper, it will be rejected. If the answer is positive, then the paper is going to be sent to the reviewers according to hers/his expertise. Usually time frame for first evaluation is 6-8 weeks. First review comments are going to be sent to the author(s) for (not)acceptance. If author(s) does not want to accept comments and recommendations, that has to be explained with valid and strong arguments. In that case editor-in-chief and expert members within editorial board will took a final decision about the paper publication.

Upute za recenzente

Na dnu ove stranice nalaze se obrasci za recenziju primljenog rada. Molimo recenzente obraćanje pozornosti na sljedeće stavke prilikom izrade recenzije:

- jasnoća, sažetost, čitljivost i sadržajnost naziva te samog rada u sadržajnom smislu;

- organizacija rada;

- ispravnost metodološkog postupka;

- izvornost rada te njegov mogući znanstveni doprinos;

- uporabljena literatura odnosno izvori koji su korišteni;

- primjerenost i točnost nazivlja koje autor koristi u radu;

- prijedlog za moguće promjene, dopune u radu;

- završna ocjena treba li rad biti objavljen bez ili nakon određenih intervencija u tekst, odnosno da rad nije preporučljiv za objavljivanje.

 

Prilikom davanja ocjene o radu, recenzenti se trebaju vodit po sljedećim ocjenama:

- Izvorni znanstveni rad - sadrži do sad još neobjavljene rezultate izvornih znanstvenih istraživanja, stavova, zaključaka;

- Prethodno priopćenje - iako sadrži nove rezultate zanstvenih istraživanja, stavova i/ili zaključaka, a potrebno ga je brzo objaviti

- Pregledni rad - sadrži izvoran prikaz pojedinog tematskog područja koje je na jasan, prihvatljiv napisano te daje doprinos znanosti

- Stručni rad - rad koji sadrži korisne i uporabljive prijedloge, stavove i mišljenja iz struke i za struku, te u pravilu ne predstavlja rezultat izvornih istraživanja.

 

Guidelines for reviewers

At the bottom of this page, form for reviewing received article can be downloaded. Dear reviewers pay attention to the following items when writing a review:

- clarity, conciseness, legibility and content of the title and the article itself in terms of its content;

- article organization;

- correctness of the methodological procedure;

- literature and sources used for the article;

- adequacy and accuracy of the terminology used by the author i the article;

- proposal for possible changes, additions to the paper;

- final assessment of whether the paper should be published without or after certain interventions in the article; ie that the article is not recommended for publication.

 

When you are writing review, you should be guided by the following definitions:

- Original scientific paper - contains hitherto unpublished results of original scientific research, views and conclusions;

- Preliminary communication - although it contains new results of scientific research, views and/or conclusions, and needs to be published quickly;

- Review paper - contains an original overview of a particular thematic area that is written in a clear, acceptable way and contributes to the science;

- Professional paper - article that contains useful and usable suggestions, attitudes and opinions from the experts and for the experts, and, as a rule, does not represent the result of original research.


Please download a template for reviewers

 

Preuzmite predložak za recenzente



 

 
https://nsf-journal.hr/Guidelines
nsf-journal.hr
CC-MAIN-2023-40
38580
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:FOS3AKW6SNOMZHHC3GEQMFGQP5EMFVMA
<urn:uuid:51967383-50db-40c1-9b7b-88b60ed1d06a>
2023-10-01T22:54:42Z
213.186.16.203
text/html
sha1:N3AWX2SZLV4OSYHGPAZZLYFWDF5H2HJB
<urn:uuid:7f455821-10a4-4d84-a96a-dd8b91451c89>
https://nsf-journal.hr/Guidelines
response
<urn:uuid:9df4a1a5-99ac-4460-86fa-10a4cee96acf>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-40
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September/October 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-168
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/