{"id":8,"date":"2026-10-10T16:45:07","date_gmt":"2026-10-10T16:45:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ekonomskifokus.com\/?page_id=8"},"modified":"2026-10-11T15:34:32","modified_gmt":"2026-10-11T15:34:32","slug":"recenzijski-postupak","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/ekonomskifokus.com\/?page_id=8","title":{"rendered":"Recenzijski postupak"},"content":{"rendered":"

Svi znanstveni radovi zaprimljeni u \u010dasopisu Ekonomski fokus<\/strong> prolaze uredni\u010dku provjeru i, ako zadovoljavaju osnovne formalne i sadr\u017eajne kriterije, upu\u0107uju se u postupak dvostruko slijepe recenzije (double-blind peer review)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

U dvostruko slijepom recenzijskom postupku identitet autora nije poznat recenzentima, a identitet recenzenata nije poznat autorima. Na taj se na\u010din nastoji osigurati nepristrano, neovisno i stru\u010dno vrednovanje rukopisa, usmjereno isklju\u010divo na njegovu znanstvenu kvalitetu, originalnost, metodolo\u0161ku utemeljenost i relevantnost za podru\u010dje \u010dasopisa.<\/p>\n

Po\u010detna uredni\u010dka procjena<\/h3>\n

Nakon zaprimanja rukopisa uredni\u0161tvo provjerava odgovara li rad ciljevima i podru\u010dju \u010dasopisa, zadovoljava li osnovne tehni\u010dke i eti\u010dke zahtjeve te posjeduje li odgovaraju\u0107u razinu znanstvene kvalitete za upu\u0107ivanje u recenzijski postupak.<\/p>\n

Rukopis mo\u017ee biti odbijen prije recenzije ako je izvan podru\u010dja \u010dasopisa, ne zadovoljava osnovne znanstvene ili metodolo\u0161ke standarde, nije pripremljen u skladu s uputama autorima ili postoje ozbiljne sumnje u pogledu istra\u017eiva\u010dke i publicacijske etike.<\/p>\n

Odabir recenzenata<\/h3>\n

Rukopis koji pro\u0111e po\u010detnu uredni\u010dku procjenu u pravilu se upu\u0107uje najmanje dvama neovisnim recenzentima<\/strong> koji posjeduju odgovaraju\u0107u stru\u010dnost u podru\u010dju teme rada.<\/p>\n

Pri odabiru recenzenata uredni\u0161tvo vodi ra\u010duna o njihovoj stru\u010dnosti, neovisnosti i mogu\u0107em sukobu interesa. Recenzenti ne smiju sudjelovati u postupku ako postoje okolnosti koje bi mogle utjecati na njihovu nepristranost.<\/p>\n

Kriteriji recenzije<\/h3>\n

Recenzenti osobito procjenjuju:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • originalnost i znanstveni doprinos rada<\/li>\n
  • relevantnost istra\u017eiva\u010dkog problema<\/li>\n
  • primjerenost teorijskog okvira<\/li>\n
  • kvalitetu i transparentnost metodologije<\/li>\n
  • pouzdanost rezultata i njihovu interpretaciju<\/li>\n
  • povezanost zaklju\u010daka s rezultatima istra\u017eivanja<\/li>\n
  • kvalitetu kori\u0161tene literature<\/li>\n
  • jasno\u0107u, strukturu i razumljivost rukopisa<\/li>\n
  • uskla\u0111enost rada s eti\u010dkim i znanstvenim standardima.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Recenzenti svoje mi\u0161ljenje obrazla\u017eu i, prema potrebi, daju konkretne prijedloge za pobolj\u0161anje rukopisa.<\/p>\n

    Mogu\u0107e uredni\u010dke odluke<\/h3>\n

    Na temelju recenzentskih izvje\u0161\u0107a i vlastite procjene uredni\u0161tvo mo\u017ee donijeti jednu od sljede\u0107ih odluka:<\/p>\n

    Prihvatiti rad<\/strong> \u2013 rukopis se prihva\u0107a za objavu bez zna\u010dajnijih izmjena.<\/p>\n

    Prihvatiti uz manje izmjene<\/strong> \u2013 od autora se tra\u017ee ograni\u010dene dorade koje ne mijenjaju temeljnu strukturu ili rezultate rada.<\/p>\n

    Ponovno razmotriti nakon ve\u0107ih izmjena<\/strong> \u2013 potrebne su zna\u010dajnije sadr\u017eajne, metodolo\u0161ke ili strukturne dorade. Revidirana verzija mo\u017ee biti ponovno upu\u0107ena istim ili drugim recenzentima.<\/p>\n

    Odbiti rad<\/strong> \u2013 rukopis ne zadovoljava znanstvene, metodolo\u0161ke ili sadr\u017eajne kriterije \u010dasopisa, odnosno utvr\u0111eni nedostaci nisu prikladni za doradu u okviru postoje\u0107eg postupka.<\/p>\n

    U slu\u010daju bitno razli\u010ditih mi\u0161ljenja recenzenata uredni\u0161tvo mo\u017ee zatra\u017eiti mi\u0161ljenje dodatnog recenzenta.<\/p>\n

    Revizija rukopisa<\/h3>\n

    Ako se od autora zatra\u017ee izmjene, autori trebaju dostaviti revidiranu verziju rukopisa zajedno s jasnim odgovorom na komentare recenzenata. U odgovoru je potrebno navesti koje su izmjene prihva\u0107ene i provedene, a ako odre\u0111eni prijedlog nije prihva\u0107en, potrebno je obrazlo\u017eiti razlog.<\/p>\n

    Uredni\u0161tvo mo\u017ee ponovno uputiti revidirani rukopis na recenziju ako procijeni da je to potrebno.<\/p>\n

    Kona\u010dna odluka<\/h3>\n

    Kona\u010dnu odluku o prihva\u0107anju ili odbijanju rukopisa donosi uredni\u0161tvo \u010dasopisa, uzimaju\u0107i u obzir recenzentska mi\u0161ljenja, kvalitetu provedene revizije, znanstveni doprinos rada i njegovu uskla\u0111enost s uredni\u010dkom politikom \u010dasopisa.<\/p>\n

    Pozitivno mi\u0161ljenje recenzenata samo po sebi ne predstavlja automatsko jamstvo objave rada.<\/p>\n

    Povjerljivost<\/h3>\n

    Svi rukopisi, recenzentska izvje\u0161\u0107a i komunikacija tijekom recenzijskog postupka smatraju se povjerljivima. Recenzenti ne smiju koristiti neobjavljene podatke, ideje ili rezultate iz rukopisa za vlastite potrebe niti ih dijeliti s tre\u0107im osobama.<\/p>\n

    Uredni\u0161tvo poduzima razumne mjere kako bi za\u0161titilo anonimnost autora i recenzenata tijekom cijelog postupka dvostruko slijepe recenzije.<\/p>\n

    Sukob interesa i eti\u010dka pitanja<\/h3>\n

    Autori, recenzenti i urednici du\u017eni su prijaviti svaki stvarni ili mogu\u0107i sukob interesa koji bi mogao utjecati na objektivnost postupka.<\/p>\n

    Ako se tijekom recenzije ili nakon objave pojave sumnje u plagiranje, manipulaciju podacima, neprimjereno autorstvo, vi\u0161estruku prijavu rada ili druge oblike povrede publicacijske etike, uredni\u0161tvo \u0107e postupiti u skladu s va\u017ee\u0107im pravilima \u010dasopisa i relevantnim me\u0111unarodnim smjernicama dobre izdava\u010dke prakse.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Svi znanstveni radovi zaprimljeni u \u010dasopisu Ekonomski fokus prolaze uredni\u010dku provjeru i, ako zadovoljavaju osnovne formalne i sadr\u017eajne kriterije, upu\u0107uju se u postupak dvostruko slijepe recenzije (double-blind peer review). U dvostruko slijepom recenzijskom postupku identitet autora nije poznat recenzentima, a identitet recenzenata nije poznat autorima. Na taj se na\u010din nastoji osigurati nepristrano, neovisno i stru\u010dno […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_eh_page_title_en":"Peer Review","_eh_page_content_en":"

    Peer-review procedure\r\n\r\n <\/h3>

    All scientific manuscripts submitted to Ekonomski fokus<\/strong> undergo an initial editorial assessment and, if they meet the journal\u2019s basic formal and substantive requirements, are sent for double-blind peer review<\/strong>.<\/p>

    In the double-blind peer review process, the identity of the authors is not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors. This approach is intended to ensure impartial, independent, and professional evaluation of manuscripts based solely on their scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal\u2019s scope.<\/p>

    Initial Editorial Assessment<\/h3>

    After submission, the editorial team evaluates whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of the journal, complies with the basic technical and ethical requirements, and demonstrates an appropriate level of scientific quality for peer review.<\/p>

    A manuscript may be rejected before peer review if it falls outside the scope of the journal, does not meet basic scientific or methodological standards, has not been prepared in accordance with the author guidelines, or raises serious concerns regarding research or publication ethics.<\/p>

    Selection of Reviewers<\/h3>

    Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers<\/strong> with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.<\/p>

    When selecting reviewers, the editorial team considers their expertise, independence, and any potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers should not participate in the evaluation process if circumstances exist that could affect their impartiality.<\/p>

    Review Criteria<\/h3>

    Reviewers are asked to evaluate, in particular:<\/p>

    • the originality and scientific contribution of the manuscript<\/li>
    • the relevance of the research problem<\/li>
    • the adequacy of the theoretical framework<\/li>
    • the quality and transparency of the methodology<\/li>
    • the reliability of the results and their interpretation<\/li>
    • the consistency of the conclusions with the research findings<\/li>
    • the quality and relevance of the cited literature<\/li>
    • the clarity, structure, and readability of the manuscript<\/li>
    • compliance with ethical and scientific standards.<\/li><\/ul>

      Reviewers are expected to provide a reasoned assessment and, where appropriate, specific recommendations for improving the manuscript.<\/p>

      Possible Editorial Decisions<\/h3>

      Based on the reviewers\u2019 reports and the editorial assessment, one of the following decisions may be made:<\/p>

      Accept<\/strong> \u2013 the manuscript is accepted for publication without significant changes.<\/p>

      Accept with minor revisions<\/strong> \u2013 limited revisions are required that do not substantially alter the structure, methodology, or results of the manuscript.<\/p>

      Reconsider after major revisions<\/strong> \u2013 substantial content, methodological, or structural revisions are required. The revised manuscript may be returned to the same or to different reviewers for further evaluation.<\/p>

      Reject<\/strong> \u2013 the manuscript does not meet the journal\u2019s scientific, methodological, or substantive standards, or the identified deficiencies cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.<\/p>

      If the reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the editorial team may seek an additional review.<\/p>

      Revision of the Manuscript<\/h3>

      When revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised version of the manuscript together with a clear response to the reviewers\u2019 comments.<\/p>

      The response should indicate which recommendations have been accepted and how the manuscript has been revised. If an author chooses not to follow a particular recommendation, a reasoned explanation should be provided.<\/p>

      The editorial team may return the revised manuscript for further peer review if necessary.<\/p>

      Final Decision<\/h3>

      The final decision on whether to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the editorial team, taking into account the reviewers\u2019 reports, the quality of the revisions, the scientific contribution of the manuscript, and its compliance with the journal\u2019s editorial policies.<\/p>

      Positive recommendations from reviewers do not automatically guarantee publication.<\/p>

      Confidentiality<\/h3>

      All manuscripts, peer review reports, and communications related to the review process are treated as confidential.<\/p>

      Reviewers must not use unpublished data, ideas, or results contained in submitted manuscripts for their own purposes or disclose them to third parties.<\/p>

      The editorial team takes reasonable measures to protect the anonymity of both authors and reviewers throughout the double-blind review process.<\/p>

      Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Issues<\/h3>

      Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of the review process.<\/p>

      If concerns arise during peer review or after publication regarding plagiarism, data manipulation, inappropriate authorship, duplicate submission, or other forms of publication misconduct, the editorial team will act in accordance with the journal\u2019s policies and relevant international standards of responsible scholarly publishing.<\/p><\/div>","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-8","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekonomskifokus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekonomskifokus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekonomskifokus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekonomskifokus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekonomskifokus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ekonomskifokus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":88,"href":"https:\/\/ekonomskifokus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8\/revisions\/88"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekonomskifokus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}