The review is done on an on-line review form, accessed through the Faculty of Law website. Review is anonymous.

The reviewer in the review form inputs his basic information (name, surname, title, name of the institution in which he is employed) and information on the revised text (title of the article), gives a recommendation on publication, gives his expert opinion on the text and makes its classification in the appropriate category (to delete or delete unnecessarily), and, finally, puts the date of the review and the personal signature.

Giving expert opinions includes an assessment of:

  • how much the reviewed text represents the original scientific work, based on the achievements of contemporary science;
  • are there texts of similar content and quality;
  • whether the text meets methodological requirements (the adequacy of titles and subheadings, keywords, etc.);
  • whether relevant (actual) literature was used;
  • whether the text is expressed transparently and clearly (in conceptual and linguistic terms).

Based on the expert opinion, the receptionist makes a recommendation on the publication of the text. If the recommendation is positive, the reviewer classifies the text into one of the following categories of scientific papers:

  1. Original scientific article,
  2. Reviewed scientific article,
  3. Brief scientific article,
  4. Professional article,
  5. Scientific / expert presentation at the conference,
  6. Criticism, controversy, discussion annex.

When giving expert opinions, the reviewer uses the typology of documents / papers for keeping bibliographies in the COBBIS system.

TYPOLOGY OF DOCUMENTS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF BIBLIOGRAPHY IN THE COBBIS SYSTEM

Original scientific article

The original scientific article is the first publication of original research results in such a form that the research can be repeated, and the established facts can be proven. As a rule, it is organized according to the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) scheme for experimental research or in a descriptive way for descriptive scientific areas. It must be published in a scientific journal with a review system for accepting articles and reviewed.

Reviewed scientific article

A reviewing scientific article is an overview of the latest papers on a specific subject area, the work of an individual researcher or research group with the aim of summarizing, analyzing, evaluating or synthesizing the information already published. It brings new syntheses that also include the results of the author’s own research. It must be published in a scientific journal with a review system for accepting articles and reviewed.

Brief scientific article

A short scientific supplement is the original scientific article in which some elements of the IMRAD scheme can be dropped. Briefly summarizes the results of the completed original research work or work that is still in progress. This includes mini review and previous publication, if they have the significance of a short scientific supplement.

Professional article

The professional article is an already well-known presentation, with emphasis on the usefulness of the results of original research and knowledge dissemination, and the complexity of the text adapted to the needs of the users and readers of the professional or scientific journal in which it was published. Published scientific conference lecture  (paper, poster) as a whole published in the independent conference proceedings, in the scientific journal or on the web site of the conference or conference organizer. The published presentation must at least be organized in principle as a scientific article. Reviewing the criteria for original / transparent scientific articles, or independent scientific components in monographs, is determined with regard to the typology of the conference proceedings, which may be an independent monographic publication, a regular or special number of journals, a supplement or a source on the Internet. Abstracts and extended summaries, or published transparencies, do not fall into this category.

Expert presentation at the conference

 Published expert presentation at the conference (lecture, report, poster) as a whole published in the independent conference proceedings, in scientific (or professional) journals or on the web site of the conference or organizer of the conference. Abstracts and extended summaries, or published transparencies, do not fall into this category.

Review, book review

An attachment in a scientific or professional publication (journal, book) in which the author evaluates or demonstrates the correctness / irregularity of a scientific or professional work, criteria, opinion or established fact, and / or rebuts / supports / evaluates established facts, works or opinions of others author. Display of expert opinions, opinions on scientific, professional or artistic work, especially with regard to its quality.

Polemics, discussion annex

An attachment in which the author proves the correctness of a particular criterion, his or her opinion or established fact, and rejects the conclusions or opinions of other authors.
https://pravnifakultet.edu.ba/recenziranje/?lang=en
pravnifakultet.edu.ba
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-25
71568
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:Q7Y4H6RCXD7Z5FJFUE5KUWRSQ44IW3GZ
<urn:uuid:0d5971aa-4821-4364-8e93-87a152cdaf68>
2021-06-24T19:11:49Z
185.212.108.131
text/html
sha1:Y4RUKOLN4SQ5GUFTGORRAXY4CUDMUJRH
<urn:uuid:0221c241-c123-461e-8f25-7c61b03efb27>
https://pravnifakultet.edu.ba/recenziranje/?lang=en
response
<urn:uuid:69899fab-b5eb-42d5-baca-9192c6ef7199>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-25
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-172.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-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/