Review process

Romano džaniben is a peer-reviewed journal. All scientific texts intended for publication undergo a review process, the aim of which is to ensure the professional quality, originality, and relevance of published contributions.

What types of texts are subject to the review process

The following are accepted for review:

specialized studies,
material studies,
review articles (i.e., more extensive analytical reviews that take into account the broader context of the topic).

Other sections of the journal (e.g., interviews, profiles, memoirs, short book reviews, or discussions) are not subject to peer review.

Review process

Each submitted contribution is first assessed by a member of the editorial board, who evaluates whether the text corresponds to the thematic focus and professional profile of the journal. If the contribution meets the basic criteria, it is forwarded for review. Based on the review reports, a decision is then made on whether to accept, revise, or reject the contribution.

Editors may reject a submission at the initial stage if the text does not meet the minimum requirements for professional level, text structure, or linguistic quality.

If the text is referred for review, this takes the form of a double-blind review. Authors and reviewers do not know each other and their identities are not disclosed during the review process. The editorial board of the journal is fully responsible for the anonymization of manuscripts and reviews, ensuring that all identifying information is removed before the texts are submitted for review and before they are returned to the authors. The aim of this procedure is to ensure an impartial, fair, and professionally unbiased evaluation of all submissions.

Manuscripts are reviewed by two independent reviewers. The editorial board strives to ensure a balanced evaluation of contributions by inviting one reviewer specializing in Romani studies to assess the relevance and contribution of the text in the context of Romani studies, and one reviewer who is an expert in the relevant scientific discipline to which the contribution belongs, who evaluates in particular the methodological quality, professional argumentation, and work with sources. Reviewers are selected with regard to their professional competence, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest.

In the event of differing recommendations from reviewers, where one review recommends publication of the manuscript and the other does not, the manuscript is submitted to a third independent reviewer for further assessment. The aim of this procedure is to ensure an impartial and professionally informed decision on the further fate of the manuscript.

If the reviewers recommend significant revision of the manuscript, the revised version of the text may be resubmitted to the original reviewers for evaluation. They then assess whether the author has incorporated their comments to a sufficient extent.

Detailed principles of publication ethics, including the rights and obligations of authors, reviewers, editors, and other participants in the publication process, are set out in a separate section on Publication Ethics.