Politics of Peer Review Process

General Information

The periodical Digital Presentation and Preservation of Cultural and Scientific Heritage upholds strict quality standards for manuscripts and the peer review process through clear criteria and dedicated teams of editors and reviewers. Manuscripts that pass these criteria are accepted, those that do not pass the criteria are rejected. The publication has adopted the Double-Blind Peer Review procedure. The Authors’ obligations, the Reviewers’ obligations and the Editors’ obligations are strictly defined in the Publishing Ethics section. The review procedures are consistent with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on publication ethics and comply with the international standards for publication ethics. The review process is clearly presented here on the periodical's website and to interested parties in the review process.

The politics of Review process follows the requirements and good practices of internationally recognized scientific publishing houses:

  • Professional responsibility and recognition. The quality and integrity of the review process of the periodical require that the reviewer be a qualified expert on the subject of the submitted material, that reviewers carefully read the submitted materials before completing their review, that the reviewer takes responsibility for the full content of their review and is the sole author of that review (AI use is not accepted), and that the reviewer agrees to keep the content of the submitted material and their review confidential. The reviewers must communicate their review in writing to the editors of the publication in accordance with the accepted format, together with detailed and constructive written feedback and an explanation of the reasons for their decision. Editors must read and consider carefully the recommendations of the reviewers before making a decision.
  • Confidentiality of submitted materials, authors, and reviews. In Double-Blind Peer Review, the identity of authors and the fact of their submission cannot be disclosed outside of persons who have a bona fide need to know as part of the review process. The submitted materials cannot be disclosed outside of authorized reviewers.
  • Reviewer confidentiality. Under Double-Blind Peer Review, the identity of reviewers cannot be disclosed to anyone who does not have a bona fide need to know as part of the review process before, during, or after the review process is completed.
  • Conflict of interest and ethical conduct. Editors, reviewers and authors agree to adhere to the highest ethical standards of peer review. The peer review process and related decisions must be free from bias based on nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other demographic characteristics, personal or professional conflicts or competing interests, or any bias that would prevent a reviewer or decision maker from providing a fair and honest review and publication decision based on the quality, relevance, and/or importance of the submitted work. No information contained in the authors’ submission will be used during the peer review process for any purpose other than to evaluate, make recommendations to the author, and make decisions to publish the article.

Submission of Manuscripts

Authors submit their manuscripts via the periodical's email address. When submitting a manuscript, authors must ensure that the text meets the thematic areas presented in the Aim and Scope section and all periodical’s requirements presented in the Author Guidelines section, including formatting, style, and citation.

 Initial Compliance Check

The Full-time professional editor and the Copy editor of the periodical perform an initial check of the submitted articles to determine whether they meet the periodical’s basic requirements. This includes:

  • Checking the format and structure of the manuscript (e.g., whether it complies with the requirements for abstract, keywords, sections, and bibliography).
  • Assessing the manuscript's relevance to the thematic areas covered by the periodical.
  • Checking the originality of the content and preventing plagiarism using text similarity detection software – StrikePlagiarism.
  • Checking the acceptable and responsible use of artificial intelligence generation tools (GenAI) in the preparation of the manuscript in accordance with the periodical’s requirements.

All of the manuscripts that meet the periodical’s Aim and Scope and Author’s Guidelines requirements go through Double-Blind Peer Review procedure.

Selection of Reviewers

The periodical editors-in-chief select reviewers based on their experience and expertise in the relevant field.

Editors strive to engage reviewers who have up-to-date knowledge and can provide constructive and well-reasoned feedback. Reviewers must have a PhD, indicate official affiliation (university, research institute, research performing organization), provide a researcher’s digital identifier (ORCID ID, and/or Researcher ID, Scopus ID) with a complete profile, incl. publication activities and expertise.

Expectations and obligations for reviewers: timeliness, confidentiality, standards of objectivity, declaration of conflict of interest and contribution to editorial decisions, are reflected in the Publishing Ethics section.

Review Process

Double-Blind Peer Review. The review process used in the periodical Digital Presentation and Preservation of Cultural and Scientific Heritage follows the principle of Double-Blind review. This means that the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, which ensures objectivity in the evaluation. All article types undergo a Double-Blind Peer Review, except for Editorials. Articles are reviewed by at least two reviewers.

Reviewers are asked to submit the standardized independent review report within 14 days of accepting the assignment. This is done independently by each reviewer. Each reviewer must submit General comments (problem presentation, results, discussions, references, etc.), a rating of the article on a scale of 1 to 4 for Originality, Contribution to the Field, Technical Quality, Clarity of Presentation, Depth of Research, as well as Recommendation and Additional Comments, if any. The Editors-in-Chief are notified as soon as each report is submitted, along with the reviewer’s recommendations, and decide on the next steps in the process.

Review Results

Review recommendations can be:

  • Accept As Is
  • Requires Minor Corrections
  • Requires Moderate Revision
  • Requires Major Revision
  • Reject on grounds of

If one review with the opinion "Reject on grounds of" is available, the article is sent for review by a third reviewer and based on the three reviews, the editorial board makes a decision on the article.

The editors inform the authors of the review results, providing constructive feedback and comments from the reviewers.

Resubmission Process

After sending the reviews to the authors, if changes are needed, the authors must make the corrections and submit the revised manuscript. In cases of recommendations "Requires Moderate Revision" and "Requires Major Revision", the manuscript is sent for additional review by the reviewers to confirm whether the recommendations have been followed. Based on the confirmation from the reviewers, the editorial board makes a decision to accept the resubmitted articles for publication.

Responsibilities of the Editorial Team

The editorial team of periodical Digital Presentation and Preservation of Cultural and Scientific Heritage is responsible for managing the review process and ensuring compliance with the review policy. The editors also handle the resolution of any disputes or ethical issues that may arise during the review.

Based on this policy and review process, the periodical Digital Presentation and Preservation of Cultural and Scientific Heritage strives to maintain high standards of quality and transparency in scholarly publications. In terms of performance, following this policy and review process, editors ensure that articles meet high research and ethical standards and prevent the publication of manuscripts that fall below these quality standards.

Contact

If you have any questions regarding Peer Review policy and procedure, please do not hesitate to contact the editorial team at:

Postal address: Bulgaria, 1113 Sofia, 8, Acad. G. Bonchev Str., office 271

E-mail: dipp@math.bas.bg

Phone: +359 2 979 2874