PROCEDURE OF PAPER REVIEWING

The Baltic Journal of Coleopterology follows a rigorous peer-review process designed to ensure the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of all published manuscripts. The journal adheres to the ethical standards and principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Initial editorial assessment
All manuscripts submitted to the Baltic Journal of Coleopterology are first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Board.

During the initial assessment, the manuscript is evaluated for:

- originality and scientific contribution;
- relevance to the aims and scope of the journal;
- scientific quality and methodological soundness;
- compliance with the journal's editorial and submission guidelines;
- completeness and clarity of the manuscript;
- ethical and publication standards.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements of the journal or fall outside its scope may be rejected at this stage without being sent for external review (desk rejection). The corresponding author is informed of the editorial decision.

2. Selection of reviewers
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are sent to two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

At least one of the reviewers must reside in a country different from that of the author(s).

Reviewers are selected from among qualified specialists in the relevant field. Reviewers must be independent of the authors and must not have any personal, professional, academic, or financial conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their assessment.

3. Double-blind peer review
The journal uses a double-blind peer-review process.

Reviewers receive the manuscript without information that could identify the author(s), and the author(s) are not informed of the identities of the reviewers. The Editorial Office takes appropriate measures to anonymize manuscripts before they are sent for review.

The content of the review and all information obtained during the review process are treated as confidential.

4. Review criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using the standard review form.

The review should assess, in particular:

- whether the manuscript presents original scientific research and makes a meaningful contribution to knowledge;
- whether the manuscript is relevant to the aims and scope of the journal;
- whether the research objectives are clearly stated;
- whether the methodology is appropriate, sufficiently described, and scientifically sound;
- whether the data and analyses are adequate and correctly presented;
- whether statistical methods, where applicable, are appropriate and correctly applied;
- whether the results are clearly presented and properly interpreted;
- whether the conclusions are justified by the results presented;
- whether the manuscript is logically structured and clearly written;
- whether the title accurately reflects the content of the manuscript;
- whether figures, tables, and other illustrative materials are necessary, appropriate, and of sufficient quality;
- whether the abstract adequately presents the objectives, methods, main results, and conclusions;
- whether the references are relevant, sufficient, and appropriately selected;
- whether the manuscript contains any substantial overlap with previously published work;
- whether the manuscript meets the required standards of scientific and publication ethics.

5. Reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions
Based on the reviewers' reports and the overall assessment of the manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision.

The possible decisions are:

Accept: the manuscript is accepted for publication in its present form;
Revisions: substantial corrections or additional clarification are required before a final decision can be made;
Reject: the manuscript does not meet the scientific or editorial standards of the journal and will not be published.

A manuscript is accepted for publication only when it meets the journal's requirements and receives a positive recommendation from the reviewers.

6. Revisions
If reviewers recommend revisions, their comments are communicated to the author(s). The author(s) are expected to address the reviewers' comments and submit a revised version of the manuscript within the timeframe specified by the Editorial Office.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when substantial revisions have been requested.

The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board after consideration of the revised manuscript and the reviewers' recommendations.

7. Conflicting or negative reviews
If an article receives two negative reviews, the Editorial Board will normally reject the manuscript.

If the reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board may seek an additional independent review or make a decision based on the available reports and the manuscript's scientific quality.

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board.

8. Conflicts of interest
All reviewers are required to declare any potential conflict of interest, including personal, professional, academic, or financial relationships with the authors or the research presented in the manuscript.

A reviewer who identifies a conflict of interest should decline the invitation to review the manuscript.

Authors and editors are also expected to disclose any conflicts of interest relevant to the submitted manuscript.

9. Publication ethics and research integrity
The Baltic Journal of Coleopterology follows the principles and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

All participants in the publication process are expected to comply with applicable standards of research and publication ethics.

Manuscripts may be rejected or withdrawn if there is evidence of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication or falsification of data, manipulation of results, or other forms of research or publication misconduct.

Where appropriate, submitted manuscripts may be checked using professional similarity-detection software.

Cases of suspected misconduct are handled in accordance with the journal's ethical policies and relevant COPE guidelines.

10. The Use of Artificial Intelligence
AI Policy

11. Confidentiality and anonymity
All manuscripts submitted to the journal, as well as reviewers' reports and correspondence relating to the review process, are treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not disclose, share, or use unpublished information obtained through the review process for their own research or other purposes.

The identities of individual reviewers are not disclosed to authors.

12. Publication of reviewers' names
The names of reviewers who have contributed to the peer-review process are published once a year in the final issue of the Baltic Journal of Coleopterology and on the journal's website.

The publication of the annual list of reviewers does not link individual reviewers to particular manuscripts or articles.

13. Funding information
Together with the manuscript, authors should provide information concerning the financial support or funding of the research presented in the article, where applicable.

Any relevant information concerning funding of the research or publication should be included in the appropriate section of the manuscript, such as the Acknowledgements or Funding section, in accordance with the journal's submission guidelines.