![\"JelenaPRPIC\"](\"https:\/\/veterinarska-stanica-journal.hr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/JelenaPRPIC-2025.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
J. Prpi\u0107<\/strong>*, M. Bo\u017eikovi\u0107<\/strong>, M. Kamber<\/strong>, D. \u017delje\u017ei\u0107<\/strong> and L. Jemer\u0161i\u0107<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n <\/a> ▲<\/a><\/p>\n This paper explores the critical importance of accepting reviewer duties in the scientific community. The primary aim of this paper is to underscore the essential role that peer reviewers play in maintaining the integrity and quality of scholarly publications. By accepting reviewer duties, scientists and researchers contribute to the rigorous evaluation process that ensures the validity and impact of published research. The paper delves into the numerous benefits that reviewers gain from participating in the peer review process, such as staying updated with the latest research, opportunities for professional development, and enhanced reputation within the scientific community. Key words:<\/strong> peer review; scientific integrity; reviewer responsibilities; academic community; professional development<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/a> ▲<\/a><\/p>\n The peer review process is a cornerstone of scientific research and publication, serving as a quality control mechanism that ensures that the research published is of high quality, valid, and contributes meaningfully to the existing body of knowledge (Ashikuzzaman, 2025).<\/p>\n Reviewers play a critical role in this process by providing expert evaluations of manuscripts submitted for publication (Mallinson et al<\/em>., 2024). Accepting reviewer duties is not only a professional obligation but also a significant contribution to the advancement of science. This paper aims to explore the importance of accepting reviewer duties, the benefits for reviewers, and the responsibilities that come with this role. By understanding these aspects, researchers can better appreciate the value of peer review and contribute more effectively to the scientific community.<\/p>\n <\/a> ▲<\/a><\/p>\n Reviewers play a crucial role in the scientific community by providing unbiased, constructive feedback on manuscripts. Their evaluation helps authors to improve their work and ensure that only high-quality research is published (Min, 2014). This process also serves to prevent the dissemination of flawed or fraudulent research. Reviewers act as gatekeepers, maintaining the standards of scientific excellence and fostering trust in scientific literature (Nash, 2023). By scrutinizing the methodologies, data analyses, and conclusions presented in manuscripts, reviewers ensure that the research is robust and credible (Leite et al<\/em>., 2019). Moreover, the peer review process promotes academic rigor and ethical standards. By critically assessing the validity, originality, and significance of research findings, reviewers uphold the scientific method and ensure that published research contributes meaningfully to the existing body of knowledge (Johnson et al<\/em>., 2020). Their role is indispensable in validating scientific discoveries and fostering an environment of intellectual rigor and integrity. Overall, the role of reviewers in the scientific community is multifaceted and vital. Their dedication and expertise ensure the quality, integrity, and advancement of scientific research, making peer review an indispensable component of the academic publishing process.<\/p>\n <\/a> ▲<\/a><\/p>\n There are several benefits for accepting reviewer duties (Table 1).<\/p>\n Firstly, it allows reviewers to stay updated with the latest research in their field (Kelly et al<\/em>., 2014). By reviewing manuscripts, they gain early access to cutting-edge research and can incorporate new findings into their own work. This early exposure to emerging research trends helps reviewers stay at the forefront of their fields and integrate the latest advancements into their research and teaching (Kunisch et al<\/em>., 2022). Additionally, reviewers have the opportunity to see innovative methodologies and experimental techniques that may inform their future research projects (Le and Schmid, 2022). Secondly, it provides an opportunity for professional development, as reviewers can improve their own writing and critical thinking skills. Engaging in the review process hones their ability to critically evaluate research, which is invaluable for their own scholarly activities (Chan and Lee, 2021). <\/a> ▲<\/a><\/p>\n While there are many benefits to being a reviewer, it also comes with significant responsibilities (Table 2).<\/p>\n Reviewers must provide timely and constructive feedback, maintain confidentiality, and avoid conflicts of interest (Sovacool et al<\/em>., 2022). Timeliness is crucial because delays in the review process can slow down the dissemination of new research findings, which can hinder scientific progress (Kunisch et al<\/em>., 2022). Reviewers should strive to be fair and objective in their evaluations, ensuring that their reviews are based solely on the quality of the research. This means assessing the manuscript\u2019s methodology, data analysis, and conclusions without letting personal biases or preconceived notions influence their judgment (Johnson et al<\/em>., 2020). Recognizing and mitigating potential biases is a critical part of maintaining the integrity of the review process. Reviewers should be self-aware and reflect on their own potential biases, such as those related to the author\u2019s institution, nationality, or gender, and make a conscious effort to set them aside (Greenwald et al<\/em>., 2022). Upholding ethical standards is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the peer review process and ensuring that the best possible research is published (Johnson et al<\/em>., 2020). Reviewers should also verify that the findings are reported accurately and transparently, with all relevant data and methods clearly described (Mallinson et al<\/em>., 2024).<\/p>\n By fulfilling these responsibilities, reviewers contribute to the credibility and reliability of the scientific literature. Their rigorous evaluations help ensure that published research is reproducible, and trustworthy, which is essential for advancing scientific knowledge and informing policy and practice (Prager et al<\/em>., 2019). The role of the reviewer is not just to perform a critique but also to support authors in improving their work, thereby fostering a collaborative and constructive scientific community (Lim and Bowman, 2024). In conclusion, while being a reviewer offers many benefits, it also entails significant responsibilities. Reviewers must provide timely, constructive, and fair evaluations, maintain confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, and uphold ethical standards. By doing so, they play a vital role in ensuring the quality and integrity of scientific publications and contribute to the advancement of their field.<\/p>\n <\/a> ▲<\/a><\/p>\n The discussion chapter delves into the broader implications of accepting reviewer duties within the scientific community, addressing both the challenges and the evolving nature of peer review. One of the primary challenges faced by reviewers is the balancing act between their own research, teaching responsibilities, personal commitments, and the demanding nature of the review process. Despite these challenges, the role of the reviewer remains indispensable for maintaining the standards of scientific research. Reviewers are the gatekeepers who ensure the dissemination of high-quality, reliable research, thereby preserving the integrity of the scientific record (Mallinson et al<\/em>., 2024).<\/p>\n The traditional peer review model is undergoing significant transformations with the rise of open access journals and the increasing availability of preprint servers (Figure 1).<\/p>\n Open peer review, where reviewer comments and identities are made public, is gaining traction as a means to enhance transparency and accountability in the review process (Ross-Hellauer and G\u00f6r\u00f6gh, 2019). This shift presents both opportunities and challenges for reviewers. On one hand, open peer review can enhance the quality of feedback and encourage more constructive criticism, as reviewers are aware that their comments are visible to the public. On the other hand, it may also lead to increased biases and conflicts of interest becoming more apparent. Open peer review fosters a more transparent and collaborative scientific environment. It encourages reviewers to provide thorough and well-reasoned feedback, knowing that their comments will be accessible to a broader audience. This transparency can enhance the credibility of the review process and promote a culture of openness and accountability. However, it also places additional pressure on reviewers to maintain a high standard of review quality and to navigate potential conflicts of interest with greater care.<\/p>\n Another important aspect of the discussion is the need for adequate training and support for reviewers. Providing reviewers with training on how to conduct thorough and unbiased reviews can significantly enhance the overall quality of the peer review process. <\/a> ▲<\/a><\/p>\n In conclusion, accepting reviewer duties is essential for the advancement of science. <\/a> 1.\tASHIKUZZAMAN, M. D. (2025): The Importance of Peer Review in Research. LIS Education Network. https:\/\/www.lisedunetwork.com\/the-importance-of-peer-review-in-research\/ <\/a> ▲<\/a><\/p>\n Ovaj rad istra\u017euje klju\u010dnu va\u017enost prihva\u0107anja du\u017enosti recenzenata u znanstvenoj zajednici. Primarni je cilj ovog rada naglasiti esencijalnu ulogu koju recenzenti imaju u odr\u017eavanju integriteta i kvalitete znanstvenih publikacija. Prihva\u0107anjem du\u017enosti recenzenata, znanstvenici i istra\u017eiva\u010di pridonose rigoroznom evaluacijskom procesu koji osigurava valjanost i utjecaj objavljenih istra\u017eivanja. Rad se bavi brojnim pogodnostima koje recenzenti ostvaruju sudjelovanjem u procesu recenzije, poput a\u017euriranja s najnovijim istra\u017eivanjima, prilika za profesionalni razvoj i pobolj\u0161anja ugleda unutar znanstvene zajednice. Recenzenti koji aktivno sudjeluju u procesu recenzije mogu pro\u0161iriti svoje znanje, pobolj\u0161ati svoje kriti\u010dke vje\u0161tine i etablirati se kao stru\u010dnjaci u svojim podru\u010djima. Nadalje, ovaj rad isti\u010de odgovornosti koje dolaze s ulogom recenzenta, poput pru\u017eanja konstruktivnih povratnih informacija, odr\u017eavanja povjerljivosti i izbjegavanja sukoba interesa. Ispunjavanjem ovih odgovornosti, recenzenti znatno pridonose napretku svojih podru\u010dja, odr\u017eavaju standarde znanstvenog istra\u017eivanja i poti\u010du okru\u017eenje intelektualne rigoroznosti i integriteta. Rad nagla\u0161ava potrebu za aktivnim sudjelovanjem u procesu recenzije da bi se osigurao kontinuirani napredak i vjerodostojnost znanstvenih istra\u017eivanja. Poziva istra\u017eiva\u010de da prepoznaju va\u017enost svoje uloge kao recenzenata i da se aktivno uklju\u010de u proces kako bi podr\u017eali rast i razvoj svoje znanstvene zajednice. Klju\u010dne rije\u010di:<\/strong> recenzija, znanstveni integritet, odgovornosti recenzenta, akademska zajednica, profesionalni razvoj<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" J. Prpi\u0107*, M. Bo\u017eikovi\u0107, M. Kamber, D. \u017delje\u017ei\u0107 and L. Jemer\u0161i\u0107 Jelena PRPI\u0106*, BSC (Corresponding author, e-mail: balatinec@veinst.hr), Scientific Associate,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"menu_order":9,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[28],"tags":[2645,2642,2646,2644,2643],"issuem_issue":[2611],"ppma_author":[78,2543,2544,76],"class_list":["post-8642","article","type-article","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-review-articles","tag-academic-community","tag-peer-review","tag-professional-development","tag-reviewer-responsibilities","tag-scientific-integrity","issuem_issue-veterinarska-stanica-56-6"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nJelena PRPI\u0106<\/strong>*, BSC (Corresponding author, e-mail: balatinec@veinst.hr), Scientific Associate, Margarita BO\u017dIKOVI\u0106<\/strong>, DVM, Expert Associate, Magda KAMBER<\/strong>, DVM, Expert Associate, Darko \u017dELJE\u017dI\u0106<\/strong>, DVM, Expert Advisor, Lorena JEMER\u0160I\u0106<\/strong>, DVM, Professor, Croatian Veterinary Institute, Zagreb, Croatia<\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/veterinarska-stanica-journal.hr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/pdf.png\")
<\/a>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.46419\/vs.56.6.12<\/a><\/div>\n<\/p>\n\nAbstract<\/a>Introduction<\/a>The Role of Reviewers in the Scientific Community<\/a>Benefits of Being a Reviewer<\/a>Responsibilities of a Reviewer<\/a>Discussion<\/a>Conclusion<\/a>References<\/a>Sa\u017eetak<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
Abstract<\/h2>\n
\n
\nReviewers who engage actively in the peer review process can broaden their knowledge, refine their critical thinking skills, and establish themselves as experts in their respective fields.
\nFurthermore, this paper highlights the responsibilities that come with being a reviewer, suchas providing constructive feedback, maintaining confidentiality, and avoiding conflicts of interest. By fulfilling these responsibilities, reviewers contribute significantly to the advancement of their field, uphold the standards of scientific research, and foster an environment of intellectual rigor and integrity. The paper emphasizes the need for active participation in the peer review process to ensure the continuous improvement and credibility of scientific research. It calls upon researchers to recognize the importance of their role as reviewers and to actively engage in the process to support the growth and development of their scientific community. Through diligent and ethical reviewing practices, reviewers play a pivotal role in shaping the future of scientific knowledge and innovation.<\/p>\nIntroduction<\/h2>\n
\n
\nThe integrity and credibility of scientific literature heavily rely on the thoroughness and diligence of reviewers . Their role extends beyond merely identifying errors or flaws in a manuscript (Ashikuzzaman, 2025) but also providing a constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work, ensuring that the research is robust, transparent, and of high quality (Min, 2014). Their evaluations are crucial in validating scientific discoveries and preventing the dissemination of inaccurate or misleading information.<\/p>\nThe Role of Reviewers in the Scientific Community<\/h2>\n
\n
\nReviewers also help to identify potential ethical issues, such as conflicts of interest or research misconduct, further ensuring the integrity of scientific literature (Drolet et al<\/em>., 2022). In addition to their evaluative role, reviewers contribute to the advancement of science by encouraging authors to refine their hypotheses, improve their experimental designs, and clarify their interpretations. This iterative process of revision and improvement leads to higher-quality publications that advance knowledge within a scientific field (Drozdz and Ladomary, 2024). Reviewers\u2019 insights and suggestions often inspire new research questions and directions, fostering innovation and progress within the scientific community (Kunisch et al<\/em>., 2022). Furthermore, the peer review process provides a platform for scientific dialogue and collaboration. By engaging with the work of their peers, reviewers stay updated with the latest developments and trends in their field, enhancing their own research and expertise (Drozdz and Ladomary, 2024). This interaction between authors and reviewers promotes a collaborative and constructive approach to scientific inquiry, strengthening the overall research ecosystem (Nova and Gonz\u00e1lez, 2023).<\/p>\nBenefits of Being a Reviewer<\/h2>\n
\n![\"Table01-The-Importance\"](\"https:\/\/veterinarska-stanica-journal.hr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/Table01-The-Importance.png\")
\nBy assessing the strengths and weaknesses of submitted manuscripts, reviewers develop a more discerning eye for quality research, which enhances their ability to produce high-quality publications.
\nMoreover, the experience of providing constructive feedback can improve a reviewer\u2019s ability to articulate and defend their scientific arguments effectively (Shashok, 2008). Lastly, being a reviewer enhances one\u2019s reputation and visibility in the scientific community. It demonstrates expertise and commitment to advancing the field, which can lead to further opportunities for collaboration and career advancement (Yu et al<\/em>., 2024). Reviewers are often recognized by their peers, editors, and academic institutions for their contributions to the peer review process. This recognition can result in invitations to serve on editorial boards, participate in conference committees, and collaborate on research projects (Prager et al<\/em>, 2019). Additionally, reviewers often find the process intellectually stimulating and rewarding. It offers a chance to contribute to the academic discourse, influence the direction of research, and mentor less experienced researchers. Reviewers can also develop a deeper understanding of the peer review process, which can be beneficial when they submit their own work for publication (Sovacool et al<\/em>., 2022). Engaging with diverse research topics and perspectives broadens a reviewer\u2019s knowledge base and fosters a more holistic understanding of their field (Lim and Bowman, 2024). Furthermore, the mentorship aspect of reviewing allows experienced researchers to guide and support early- career scientists, contributing to the growth and development of the next generation of scholars (Martin et al<\/em>., 2023). In summary, accepting reviewer duties offers a multitude of benefits, including staying updated with the latest research, professional development, enhanced reputation, intellectual stimulation, and opportunities for mentorship. By embracing these responsibilities, reviewers play a vital role in advancing scientific knowledge and maintaining the integrity of scholarly publications.<\/p>\nResponsibilities of a Reviewer<\/h2>\n
\n![\"Table02-The-Importance\"](\"https:\/\/veterinarska-stanica-journal.hr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/Table02-The-Importance.png\")
\nConstructive feedback is essential for helping authors improve their work and advance their research. Reviewers should aim to provide specific, actionable suggestions that authors can use to enhance the quality of their manuscripts (Le and Schmid, 2022).<\/p>\n
\nReviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts they review, meaning they should not share the content or discuss it with others outside of the review process (Martin et al<\/em>., 2023). This confidentiality helps protect the intellectual property of authors and ensures that their ideas are not disclosed prematurely. Furthermore, reviewers should be diligent in their assessment, thoroughly examining the methodology, data analysis, and conclusions presented in the manuscripts.
\nThey should ensure that the research adheres to ethical guidelines (Table 3), such as obtaining appropriate ethical approvals for studies involving human or animal subjects (Shashok, 2008).<\/p>\n![\"Table03-The-Importance\"](\"https:\/\/veterinarska-stanica-journal.hr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/Table03-The-Importance.png\")
Discussion<\/h2>\n
\n![\"Figure01-The-Importance\"](\"https:\/\/veterinarska-stanica-journal.hr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/Figure01-The-Importance.jpg\")
\nInstitutions and journals can offer workshops, online courses, and mentoring programs to help reviewers develop the necessary skills and knowledge (Hesselber et al<\/em>., 2023).
\nSuch training programs can cover various aspects of the review process, including how to evaluate methodology, data analysis, and ethical considerations. In addition to training, recognizing and rewarding the efforts of reviewers can motivate them to engage more actively in the review process.
\nFormal acknowledgments, certificates, and incentives such as reduced publication fees or professional development opportunities can serve as valuable incentives. Recognizing the contributions of reviewers not only highlights their importance in the scientific community but also encourages a culture of appreciation and respect for their efforts. Ethical considerations are paramount in the peer review process.
\nReviewers must navigate potential conflicts of interest, ensure confidentiality, and provide honest and constructive feedback (Sovacool et al<\/em>., 2022). Adhering to ethical guidelines and maintaining integrity in the review process is essential for preserving the trust and credibility of scientific literature. Institutions and journals should establish clear guidelines and policies to support ethical conduct in peer review. Confidentiality is a critical aspect of ethical peer review. Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the manuscripts they review and avoid sharing or discussing the content with others. Additionally, reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may affect their objectivity and refrain from reviewing manuscripts in such cases. Providing transparent and unbiased feedback helps maintain the integrity of the review process and ensures that the best possible research is published. The broader implications of accepting reviewer duties extend to the entire scientific community.
\nReviewers are essential in upholding the integrity of scientific research, ensuring that new findings are credible, accurate, and adhere to ethical guidelines. By participating in the peer review process, reviewers contribute to the collective advancement of knowledge and the betterment of society. Moreover, the evolving landscape of peer review presents opportunities for innovation and improvement. Embracing new models such as open peer review and investing in reviewer training and support can enhance the quality and transparency of the review process. As the scientific community continues to evolve, the role of reviewers will remain central to maintaining the credibility and reliability of scientific literature.<\/p>\nConclusion<\/h2>\n
\n
\nThe peer review process ensures the quality and integrity of scientific publications and provides numerous benefits to reviewers themselves. By fulfilling their responsibilities, reviewers contribute to the overall progress of their field and uphold the standards of scientific research. The peer review process relies on the dedication and expertise of reviewers, making their role indispensable in the scientific community. Their contributions help maintain the trust and credibility of scientific literature, ultimately advancing knowledge and fostering innovation.
\nReviewers not only help maintain the integrity of the scientific record but also gain valuable insights and professional growth. Their role is fundamental in fostering a collaborative and rigorous scientific environment, ensuring that new research is thoroughly vetted and that only high-quality studies are published.
\nThe commitment of reviewers to their duties exemplifies their dedication to the advancement of science and the betterment of society as a whole.<\/p>\n
\nReferences<\/strong> [… show]<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n ▲<\/a><\/p>\n
\n2.\tCHAN, C. K. Y. and K. K. W. LEE (2021): Reflection literacy: A multilevel perspective on the challenges of using reflections in higher education through a comprehensive literature review. Educ. Res. Rev. 32, 100376. 10.1016\/j.edurev.2020.100376
\n3.\tDROLET, M. J., E. ROSE-DEROUIN, J. C. LEBLANC, M. RUEST and B. WILLIAMS-JONES (2023): Ethical Issues in Research: Perceptions of Researchers, Research Ethics Board Members and Research Ethics Experts. J. Acad. Ethics. 21, 269-292. 10.1007\/s10805-022-09455-3
\n4.\tDROZDZ, J. A. and M. R. LADOMERY (2024): The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future. Br. J. Biomed. Sci. 81, 12054. 10.3389\/bjbs.2024.12054
\n5.\tGREENWALD, A. G., N. DASGUPTA, J. F. DOVIDIO, J. KANG, C. A. MOSS-RACUSIN, and B. A. TEACHMAN (2022): Implicit-Bias Remedies: Treating Discriminatory Bias as a Public-Health Problem. Psychol. Sci. Public. Interest. 23, 7-40. 10.1177\/15291006211070781
\n6.\tHESSELBERG, J. O., T. K. DALSB\u00d8, H. STROMME, I. SVEGE and A. FRETHEIM (2023): Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 11, MR000056. 10.1002\/14651858. MR000056.pub2
\n7.\tJOHNSON, J. L., D. ADKINS and S. CHAUVIN (2020): A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 84, 7120. 10.5688\/ajpe7120
\n8.\tKELLY, J., T. SADEGHIEH and K. ADELI (2014): Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. Electron. J. Int. Fed. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 25, 227-243.
\n9.\tKUNISCH, S., D. DENYER, J. M. BARTUNEK, M. MENZ and L. B. CARDINAL (2023): Review Research as Scientific Inquiry. Organ. Res. Methods. 26, 3-45. 10.1177\/10944281221127292
\n10.\tL\u00ca, J. K. and T. SCHMID (2022): The Practice of Innovating Research Methods. Organ. Res. Methods. 25, 308-336. 10.1177\/1094428120935498
\n11.\tLEITE, D. F. B., M. A. S. PADILHA and J. G. CECATTI (2019): Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature Review Checklist. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 74, e1403. 10.6061\/clinics\/2019\/e1403
\n12.\tLIM, W. M. and C. BOWMAN (2024): Giving and Responding to Feedback: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers. Activ. Adapt. Aging. 48, 205-213. 10.1080\/01924788.2024.2304948
\n13.\tMALLINSON, D. C., C. JEWELL and F. AZIZ (2024): The Art of Peer Review. W.M.J., 123, 70-73.
\n14.\tMARTIN, A., J. MORI and D. E. FROEHLICH (2023): Career Development of Early Career Researchers via Distributed Peer Mentoring Networks. Merits. 3, 569-582. 10.3390\/merits3030034
\n15.\tMIN, K. S. (2014): Reviewers are not perfect but could they try harder? J. Bus. Res. 67, 1967-1970. 10.1016\/j.jbusres.2013.11.002
\n16.\tNASH, C. (2023): Roles and Responsibilities for Peer Reviewers of International Journals. Publications 11, 32. 10.3390\/publications11020032
\n17.\tNOVA, N. A. and R. A. GONZ\u00c1LEZ (2023): Evaluating Collaboration in a Translational Research Ecosystem. Systems. 11, 503. 10.3390\/systems11100503
\n18.\tPRAGER, E. M., K. E. CHAMBERS, J. L. PLOTKIN, D. L. MCARTHUR, A. E. BANDROWSKI, N. BANSAL, M. E. MARTONE, H. C. BERGSTROM, A. BESPALOV and C. GRAF (2019): Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing. Brain. Behav. 9(1), e01141. 10.1002\/brb3.1141
\n19.\tROSS-HELLAUER, T. and E. G\u00d6R\u00d6GH (2019): Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Res. Integr. Peer Rev. 4, 4. 10.1186\/s41073-019-0063-9
\n20.\tSHASHOK K. (2008): Content and communication: how can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing? BMC Med. Res. Methodol 8, 3. 10.1186\/1471-2288-8-3
\n21.\tSOVACOOL, B. K., J. AXSEN, L. L. DELINA, H. SCHAFFER BOUDET, V. RAI, R. SIDORTSOV, S. AWAWORYI CHURCHILL, K. E. H. JENKINS and R. GALVIN (2022): Towards codes of practice for navigating the academic peer review process. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 89, 102675. 10.1016\/j.erss.2022.102675
\n22.\tYU, H., Y. LIANG and Y. XIE (2024): Can peer review accolade awards motivate reviewers? A large-scale quasi-natural experiment. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 11, 1557. 10.1057\/s41599-024-04088-w
\n<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
Va\u017enost prihva\u0107anja du\u017enosti recenzenta u znanstvenoj zajednici<\/h2>\n
\nJelena PRPI\u0106<\/strong>, dipl. ing. mol. biol., znanstvena suradnica, Margarita BO\u017dIKOVI\u0106<\/strong>, dr. med. vet., stru\u010dna suradnica, Magda KAMBER<\/strong>, dr. med. vet., stru\u010dna suradnica, Darko \u017dELJE\u017dI\u0106<\/strong>, dr. med. vet., stru\u010dni savjetnik, Lorena JEMER\u0160I\u0106<\/strong>, dr. med. vet., redovita profesorica, Hrvatski veterinarski institut, Zagreb, Hrvatska<\/div>\n
\n
\nKroz marljive i eti\u010dne prakse recenziranja, recenzenti imaju klju\u010dnu ulogu u oblikovanju budu\u0107nosti znanstvenog znanja i inovacija.<\/p>\n