Publishing ethics

Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unacceptable.
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if they have used the work of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted and permission has been obtained where necessary. Plagiarism is unacceptable.
Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is unacceptable.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Authors take collective responsibility for the work.  Each individual author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial and personal relationships with other people or organisations that could be viewed as inappropriately influencing (bias) their work.

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper if deemed necessary by the editor. If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains an error, it is the obligation of the author to cooperate with the editor, including providing evidence to the editor where requested.

Copyright

The articles published in the journal are open-access articles under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). The signed Copyright assignment form should be submitted along with the paper. Authors are responsible for obtaining permission from the copyright holder to reproduce any data, tables, schemes and figures for which copyright exists.

Archiving

Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.

Peer review process

The aim of the peer review process is to ensure that high-quality and original research is published. All articles published in the Naše gospodarstvo/Our Economy (NGOE) are peer-reviewed and all papers submitted follow the procedure outlined below.

Initial paper evaluation

All papers submitted for publication consideration in NGOE are first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief. Papers which fall outside the aims and scope of the journal or fail to meet the requirements of a scientific research will either be rejected at this initial point or returned to the author for revision. Papers are never accepted by the Editor-in-Chief without the reports of two reviewers, at least.

Plagiarism checking

Papers that pass the initial evaluation stage are subject to a similarity/plagiarism scanning by using a plagiarism screening program. Any paper with a similarity percentage (excluding references) greater than 25 % will be rejected. Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation stage and have a similarity rate below 25 % proceed to the referee process. All submitted papers are subject to anti-plagiarism control in the iThenticate system.

Peer review

NGOE employs double-anonymous reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process.

Instructions for reviewers

The primary objective of the reviewer's evaluation is to provide sufficient and unambiguous answers to the following questions and also recommendations for possible changes and improvements to the paper:
- does the title match the subject of the paper and does the subject of the paper correspond with the area of 
  interest of the journal (according to "Aims and Scope"),
- is the Abstract correct, i.e. short but presenting the main results of the researches and conclusions based on
  these results,
- does the Introduction present the subject and the objective of the researches correctly,
- are the implemented methods used properly and is the research material sufficient,
- are the results described, analyzed, commented on and presented correctly, without repetitions of data in
  tables and diagrams,
- is the discussion presented correctly, based on actual knowledge and with the use of properly chosen
  scientific literature (as recent as possible),
- do the conclusions generalize the obtained results and provide recommendations, which are appropriately
  prepared on the basis of results and are not merely the repetition of those results,
- does the paper introduce new and interesting information and does it have sufficient impact and add to the
  knowledge base. 

The formal evaluation of the paper should include answers to the following questions:
- whether the layout and contents of tables and graphs is readable and convenient for recipients,
- is the information in tables not repeated in graphs and vice versa,
- are there no reservations about the length of the paper, its linguistic correctness, the method of citation of
  the literature and usage of units, etc.?

Reviewers' evaluation

Papers are sent to at least two reviewers assigned by the Editor-in-Chief or Co-editor. The reviewers are chosen according to their expertise. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methodology, contribution to the literature, presentation of results and support for the conclusions, and appropriate referencing of previous relevant studies. Reviewers may either recommend accepting the manuscript, rejecting the manuscript or may require a revision for content and/or technical issues. When making a final recommendation, the reviewers should clearly state whether the paper is suitable for publication in journal. In the case of a positive answer, the reviewers indicate whether:
- it might be accepted without changes,
- it might be accepted after minor changes, suggested by the reviewer in the manuscript or in his/her
  opinion,
- it might be accepted after major changes (please indicate them).

The detailed evaluation criteria are outlined in the Paper Review Form.

If the reviews are positive they are sent for the reviews to the corresponding author. For a paper to be accepted for publication, two positive reviews are required. In case one reviewer's report is negative while the other is positive, the paper is forwarded to a third reviewer for additional evaluation. When a revision is required by the reviewer, the author(s) are to consider the critical observations and suggestions offered by the referees, and a revised paper should be submitted within a set deadline, otherwise it will be assumed to have been withdrawn. Reviewers may request more than one revision of a paper.

Final evaluation

Based on the corrected versions of the paper and the answers to the reviews the Editors take the final decision as to whether to publish the paper or not.
Proofs are sent to the corresponding author and should be returned within the set deadline.
Every year a list of Reviewers collaborating with the Editors of the NGOE is shown on the Journal's website when all four issues of the journal have been sent to print.