Reviewers Guide
Online Manuscript Review
We strongly encourage referees to provide their comments through our user-friendly online submission system. The editor's email will contain a link that directs reviewers to the appropriate platform for submission.
Publication Criteria
Articles published in CATHALOGUE must present high-quality scientific research. The study conducted and statistical analyses employed should align with the technical standards of the journal and be clearly explained with sufficient details. CATHALOGUE values the use of simple language and concise phrases. It is essential that the submitted content has not been previously published elsewhere. If the results have been previously presented as an abstract at a conference, this information should be disclosed during the submission process.
Review Process
All manuscripts submitted to CATHALOGUE undergo an initial review by the editorial staff. Papers that meet the editorial criteria are forwarded for formal review. Those that are deemed to have insufficient general interest or deemed inappropriate by the editors are promptly rejected without external review, or they may be returned to the authors for initial revisions. Manuscripts that show potential interest to our readership are typically sent to two or three reviewers.
The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' feedback, choosing from several possibilities:
- Accept, with or without editorial revisions
- Accept, with a suggestion for further work that could warrant resubmission
- Reject, typically due to limited specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advancement, or major technical and/or interpretational issues
Selection of Peer Reviewers
Reviewers play a crucial role in the peer review process. The editorial decision to accept, reject, or defer an article depends heavily on their comments. Once the article passes the initial in-house check, the editorial board selects reviewers for the peer review process. Reviewers are chosen based not only on their expertise relevant to the article but also on their reputation and past experience with CATHALOGUE.
Reviewer Duties
Contribution
Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board in making informed editorial decisions, while also aiding authors in improving their manuscripts.
Promptness
If a selected referee feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or cannot provide a prompt review, they should promptly inform the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.
Confidentiality
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript. They should not show the manuscript or discuss its contents with others unless authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively, avoiding personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly, providing supporting arguments.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any previously reported statements should be accompanied by the appropriate citation. Reviewers should also bring to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper they are aware of.
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
The names of reviewers selected for the Review Board will be published only in the printed copy of the journal (specific issue). Due to the large number of reviewers, it is not feasible to list all reviewers on the website. CATHALOGUE does not provide monetary benefits to reviewers. As CATHALOGUE follows a blind review policy, being associated with the journal as a staff member does not impact the review process or the editorial decision of articles submitted by staff members.
