journal of the Institute for Bulgarian Language
pISSN 0005-4283, eISSN 2603-3372

Evaluation Card

Double-blind peer-review process

Articles and scientific communications are accepted for publication after double-blind anonymous peer-review by at least two independent reviewers. Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous. In their work, reviewers are guided by the journal's Code of Ethics.
The editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief invites two independent reviewers whose research is closest to the topic of the manuscript. The manuscript is submitted to the reviewers after anonymisation of the text where all the data that may reveal personal information about the authors have been deleted.
The reviewer indicates in free text if there are grounds for conflict of interest with respect to reviewing the proposed text, for example, co-authorship, personal competition, or other type of affiliation with the authors or other natural and legal persons directly related to the manuscript. Reviewers should refuse to review manuscripts in which there are grounds for a conflict of interest. 3.4. The reviewers of the “Balgarski ezik” (Bulgarian Language Journal) are experts in the thematic scope of the journal working at 20 scientific institutions and universities in Bulgaria and abroad. Within one month, they evaluate the manuscript according to the criteria set out in the Evaluation Card:

• compliance with the thematic scope of the journal;
• the manuscript has not been published elsewhere;
• quality of the abstract, appropriate keywords;
• originality (the manuscript reports on result of original research);
• scientific novelty and contribution – the manuscript contributes to the development of the field;
• adequacy of the chosen methodology and theoretical framework;
• knowledge of the scholarly literature on the research matter;
• reliability of the data, logical consistency and clarity, persuasiveness of the conclusions;
• the manuscript is organised according to the standards of academic writing.

The reviewers highlight the weaknesses of the text (if any) and make clear and motivated recommendations for corrections to the author(s).
Finally, reviewers recommend the editorial team to make one of the following decisions regarding the manuscript: (1) to publish the manuscript without corrections; (2) to publish the manuscript after corrections and editing; (3) to publish the manuscript with the necessary corrections according to the reviewer's recommendations and without re-reviewing; (4) to be published after major revision and re-review; (5) to reject the manuscript.
The Evaluation Card is accompanied by a Declaration of Absense Conflict of Interest from the reviewer and a Confidentiality Statement from the editorial board.

If the corrected by author(s) text significantly differs from the original one, it shall be subjected to a procedure of re-reviewing. If one or both reviewers recommend major revision of the text and re-review, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) for revision within two weeks, if they agree. The revised text is sent to the reviewer for re-review. If the author(s) do not agree with the reviewers' recommendations, they shall submit a written statement with arguments for their decision, and the manuscript shall be subjected to further reviewing.
If one of the reviewers recommends rejection, a third reviewer is invited after being informed that there is a negative review. Further steps depend on the third review.
If the manuscript is rejected by both reviewers, the author(s) are notified for the rejection with arguments for it. The final decision to publish (or reject) a submitted manuscript is made by the editorial team, which is responsible for the quality of the published content. The decision is made impartially and objectively, with strict adherence to publication ethics, and is based on the recommendations of the reviewers, the opinion of the editor-in-chief and the actions of the author(s). The main criterion is the scientific qualities of the article.