Go to content

Peer review


INCAS BULLETIN is an academic journal addressed to the local and international community and is committed to the highest standards of publication ethics and quality of articles in publication.

Editor quality check: The editors will determine if the article is of sufficient quality and appropriate content. In particular, they will check if the paper is consistent with the scope of INCAS BULLETIN and if the language quality follows the standards required for academic publications. If the paper does not demonstrate these basic characteristics, it will be rejected within 2 weeks from the initial submission without going through the peer-review process.

The review process
Submissions to INCAS BULLETIN are reviewed by two experts in the field for peer review. If the two reports express contrasting opinions (one recommends the paper for publication, and the other rejects it), a third review may be solicited.
List of reviewers )


All submitted papers are peer-reviewed. ( forms_for_peer_reviewers_evaluation_incas_bulletin )


The Reviewers must objectively evaluate the manuscripts based only on their originality, and relevance to the domains of the journal.


The Reviewers must in due time supply clear, objective and relevant comments and meant to improve the content of the submitted manuscript.


The Reviewers must at all times respect the confidentiality of any information pertaining to the manuscripts.


The period of the reviewing papers: 8 weeks.


The Reviewers should inform the Editors about any conflict of interests.

The paper will be sent to two experts in the field who will write a report evaluating the scientific quality of the paper. This process is likely to take up to
8 weeks, and the outcome of the peer review will be one of the following:

a) Acceptance, the paper will be published with the need for only minor revisions or as it is, without need of revisions, corrections, or changes;

b) Conditional acceptance, in which case the author will be required to revise the paper paying attention to the reviewers’ suggestions and comments, and then resubmit it in order to get a final acceptance;

c) Rejection. If both reviewers write negative reports, the editors will send a rejection letter with the Observations to the author and will attach reviewers’ observations.

One part of the data included in the review form: ( forms_for_peer_reviewers_evaluation_incas_bulletin )


Overview Evaluation:

- Excellent

- Very good

- Good

- Poor

A. Recommendations

- Accepted, without significant revision

- Accepted, with optional changes

- Accepted, with required changes

- Rejected but with the recommendation to be revised and resubmitted

- Rejected


B. Details. Please answer these questions (below or on back):
0. Does the paper comply with the editing guidelines ?
1. Does the paper subject match the bulletin profile ?
2. Does the paper contains original contributions ?
3. Is the exposure clear and well organized ?.
4. Is the paper scientifically correct ?
5. Are the conclusions justified and relevant ?
6. Is the title in accordance with the content ?
7. Is the paper too long and could be shortened ?
8. Are the notations well defined ?
9. Are the references relevant and complete ?
10. Are any language corrections needed ?


Other observations:

Note: The referent remains anonymous for the author(s).


Home Page | Editorial Board | OA Statement | Publications Ethics | Aims and Scope | Peer review | Notes for Authors | Archives 2009-2023 | Quotes in Database | Distribution | Editorial Office | Site Map

Back to content | Back to main menu