Peer Review Process

Natura Dinarica applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, objectivity, and scientific integrity of published articles.

Initial editorial screening

All submitted manuscripts are first assessed by the editorial office and/or the Editor-in-Chief. The purpose of the initial screening is to determine whether the manuscript:

• fits the journal’s aims and scope;
• meets basic scientific and technical standards;
• is prepared in accordance with the author guidelines;
• represents original work;
• is suitable for further peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to authors for correction or rejected before external review.

Double-blind peer review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are sent for double-blind peer review. In this process, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

Each manuscript is normally reviewed by at least two appropriate independent reviewers. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise, academic or professional competence, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Review criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

• originality and relevance of the contribution;
• scientific quality and methodological soundness;
• clarity of aims, methods, results, and conclusions;
• adequacy of data analysis and interpretation;
• relevance and currency of cited literature;
• contribution to the field;
• clarity of presentation and organization of the manuscript;
• compliance with ethical and professional standards.

Reviewer recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

• accept;
• minor revision;
• major revision;
• resubmit for further review;
• reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Revisions

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a response explaining how the reviewers’ and editors’ comments have been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editorial team, depending on the extent of the requested changes.

Conflicting reviews

If reviewer reports differ substantially, the Editor-in-Chief may seek an additional review, consult a member of the Editorial Board, or make a decision based on the available reviews and editorial assessment.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts and related correspondence are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use unpublished material from submitted manuscripts for personal or professional advantage.

Final decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection of each manuscript, taking into account reviewer reports, editorial assessment, the journal’s aims and scope, and relevant ethical standards.