Type of peer review
The Scientific Assembly of Slavonia and Baranja uses double-anonymous / double-blind peer review: authors do not know the identities of the reviewers, and reviewers are not provided with information identifying the authors.

Number and selection of reviewers
Each full paper is reviewed by at least two independent experts with appropriate scholarly or professional expertise. A third reviewer may be appointed, particularly for interdisciplinary or methodologically complex submissions, materially conflicting recommendations or where additional specialist expertise is required.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of expertise, methodology and subject matter, relevant publications and experience, independence from the authors, absence of conflicts of interest and, where possible, institutional and geographical diversity.

Reviewer conflicts of interest
A reviewer must decline a review where an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest could call impartiality into question, including close or recent collaboration with an author, a supervisory or hierarchical relationship, participation in the same project, a personal or financial interest, direct competition, or prior knowledge of the manuscript that prevents an impartial assessment. Any concern about a conflict of interest must be promptly disclosed to the Editorial Team.

Review criteria
Reviewers assess:

• alignment of the paper with the thematic scope of the Scientific Assembly
• scholarly and professional relevance of the paper
• clarity of the aims and research questions
• appropriateness of the methodology used
• quality of analysis and argumentation
• soundness of the conclusions
• clarity and structure of the paper
• appropriateness of the literature used
• contribution of the paper to the relevant scholarly or professional field.

Submissions by editors and committee members
Papers authored by members of the Editorial, Programme, Scientific or Organising Committees are subject to the same standards as all other submissions. The author concerned takes no part in reviewer selection, has no access to reviewer identities, does not participate in discussion of the manuscript and has no role in the final decision. The process is handled by an editor without a conflict of interest and, where appropriate, an independent guest editor.

Final decision
The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor who has no conflict of interest with the manuscript. The editorial decision may be acceptance, acceptance subject to minor revisions, reconsideration after revision, rejection, or discontinuation/withdrawal of the process for ethical, legal or editorial reasons. The author receives the decision and the relevant anonymised reviews through the conference system and/or by e-mail.