Proceedings of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences. Peer review

The Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences is committed to ensuring an impartial and high-quality peer-review process that upholds rigorous academic standards. The Library adheres to the publication ethics standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All manuscripts submitted to the serial are evaluated by independent reviewers using the double-blind peer-review method, which ensures an objective and unbiased assessment by concealing the identities of both authors and reviewers.

All parties involved in the process are expected to adhere to established standards of ethical conduct, as set out in the section “Publication Policy”.

Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected from invited experts rather than from members of the journal’s editorial board.
The journal seeks to ensure that reviewers are suitably qualified, impartial, and free from conflicts of interest.
Reviewers must ensure that the manuscripts are evaluated objectively and solely on the basis of scholarly merit.
The identity of reviewers is kept confidential and is not disclosed to authors in order to preserve impartiality.

Peer-Review Process

Following submission, the journal’s editors conduct an initial assessment of the manuscript to determine whether it falls within the journal’s scope and meets the required quality standards.
If the manuscript meets these requirements, it is sent to two independent reviewers with appropriate academic expertise in the relevant field, who assess the work in terms of its originality, methodology, results, and conclusions.
To ensure objectivity and fairness, reviewers will not know the identity of the authors, and authors will not know the identity of the reviewers.
Editors and reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest and remove themselves from the review process where such conflicts exist.
Reviewers must ensure that they evaluate manuscripts objectively and solely on the basis of scholarly merit.
Reviewers assess the scholarly novelty, methodological soundness, significance of results, and overall quality of the manuscript.
Reviewers provide comments and recommendations regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection, taking into account the manuscript’s quality, originality, methodological appropriateness, reliability of results, and contribution to the field.
Based on the reviewers’ evaluations and recommendations, the editorial board makes the final decision on whether to accept the manuscript, request revisions, or reject it.
Where revisions are required, authors are given the opportunity to revise and resubmit their manuscript. The revised version is subject to further review to ensure that the reviewers’ comments have been adequately addressed.
A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance of the revised manuscript.
All information related to a submitted manuscript, including reviewer identities and their evaluations, is treated as strictly confidential.

The Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences is committed to ensuring a timely and efficient peer-review process. Reviewers are requested to submit their evaluations within 4–6 weeks of receiving the manuscript, and final editorial decisions are typically made within 2–3 weeks following receipt of the reviews.

Information for Reviewers

The Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences applies a double-blind peer-review process, which ensures the full anonymity of both authors and reviewers. Accordingly, no personal data are disclosed to either party. Reviewers are, however, required to inform the editors without delay of any circumstances that may affect their objectivity, such as potential personal or institutional relationships or conflicts of interest. The purpose of peer review is to provide an objective and constructive evaluation of the scholarly article.

Reviewers are requested to submit their reports using the review form of Proceedings of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences and to relate their critical comments clearly to specific elements of the manuscript.