For reviewers

Role of reviewers

Peer review is essential to the quality and integrity of Medicinski Glasnik. Reviewers provide independent, expert assessment of manuscripts and help authors improve clarity, methodological rigor, and the overall contribution of their work. The journal uses double-blind peer review.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts and all review-related materials are confidential. Reviewers must not share, upload, or distribute manuscript content (including figures, tables, or data) or discuss it with anyone outside the review process. Manuscripts must not be used for personal advantage or to disadvantage others.

Conflicts of interest

Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting an invitation and must decline the review if a conflict exists. Conflicts include (but are not limited to) recent collaboration or co-authorship, the same institutional affiliation, personal relationships, financial interests, or direct academic competition.

Timeliness

If you agree to review, please submit your report within the requested deadline. If you need more time, notify the editorial office as early as possible. If you cannot complete the review, please decline promptly so another reviewer can be invited.

What reviewers are asked to evaluate?

Reviewers are invited to assess the manuscript’s:

  • relevance to the journal’s scope and contribution to the field

  • originality and importance of the research question

  • methodological and statistical soundness

  • ethical compliance (where applicable)

  • transparency and completeness of reporting

  • interpretation of results and whether conclusions are supported by data

  • clarity of presentation (structure, language, figures/tables, referencing)

Recommendations to the editor

Reviewers are typically asked to recommend one of the following outcomes:

  • Accept

  • Minor revision

  • Major revision

  • Reject

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief and/or handling editors.

Structure of the review report

To support efficient editorial decisions and constructive revision, please organise your report as:

  • Summary (2–4 sentences): what the manuscript is about and your overall assessment.

  • Major comments: key issues affecting validity, interpretation, or completeness (methods, statistics, bias, ethical issues, missing data, unsupported conclusions).

  • Minor comments: clarity, structure, terminology, formatting, references, presentation improvements.

  • Confidential comments to the editor (optional): use this section only for issues that should not be shared with authors, such as suspected misconduct, serious integrity concerns, or reviewer limitations. Comments intended to improve the manuscript should be addressed to the authors.

Statistical Methods Review

Where appropriate, the journal may conduct an additional statistical assessment. The Editor-in-Chief may invite a statistical editor or an independent statistical expert to review the study design, analytical approach, and statistical reporting, including the suitability of methods, handling of missing data and multiple comparisons where relevant, clarity of effect estimates and uncertainty measures, and whether the conclusions are supported by the analyses. This statistical review may be requested at any stage of editorial evaluation, alongside external peer review or prior to acceptance.

Research integrity and ethical concerns

If you suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate image manipulation, fabricated or falsified data, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other integrity concerns, please inform the editor in confidential comments and provide specific details (what appears problematic and where). Do not contact the authors directly.

Where appropriate, the journal may request original images, underlying data, protocols, or additional documentation. Reviewers may recommend such requests when needed to evaluate the work.

Tone and professionalism

Reviews should be objective, constructive, and respectful. Critique the work, not the authors. If the manuscript requires extensive language editing, please focus your comments on scientific clarity and key parts that are difficult to interpret.

Acknowledgement

The journal appreciates the time and expertise reviewers contribute to maintaining scientific quality and integrity.