Keywords
review crisis
reviewers
editors
scientific journals in the field of humanities
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Categories
How to Cite
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to examine the role and status of peer review in academic journals within the humanities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The research focuses on analysing the experiences of journal editors whose publications employ a double-blind or multiple-review process. It explores the impact of peer review on scholarly publishing and academic evaluation, while also identifying key challenges specific to the academic context of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Approach/Methodology: A qualitative research design was employed, combining a review of relevant literature with semi-structured interviews conducted with editors of domestic humanities journals in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Results: The findings indicate that several aspects of the global “peer review crisis” are also evident in the B&H academic publishing landscape. Notable issues include a limited pool of active reviewers, a general reluctance to engage with scholars affiliated with institutions outside the region, and a widespread perception that peer review is insufficiently recognized within systems of academic promotion—factors that may contribute to a lack of motivation among reviewers.
Originality/Value: This study contributes to a deeper understanding of the specific challenges faced by the peer review process in Bosnia and Herzegovina and may serve as a basis for rethinking procedures aimed at improving the quality and scope of peer review. It advocates for institutional recognition of peer review as a valuable academic activity.
Practical Implications: The findings may assist journal editors in the humanities, as well as university bodies responsible for academic evaluation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in revising criteria for assessing reviewer contributions. Furthermore, they can inform the development of educational programs focused on enhancing peer review practices.
Social Significance: Establishing a robust and credible peer review system supports the development of critical thinking, a culture of argumentation, and academic accountability. It also enhances the quality and standing of knowledge production in the field of humanities.
References
Arthur, L. P., & Hearn, L. (2021). Toward open research: A narrative review of the challenges and opportunities for open humanities. Journal of Communication 71(5), 827-853.
Breuning, M., Backstrom, J., Brannon, J., Gross, B. I., & Widmeier, M. (2015). Reviewer fatigue? Why scholars decline to review their peers’ work. PS: Political Science & Politics 48(4), 595-600.
Checco, A., Bracciale, L., Loreti, P., Pinfield, S., & Bianchi, G. (2021). AI-assisted peer review. Humanities and social sciences communications 8(1), 1-11.
Flaherty, C. (2022). The Peer-Review Crisis. Inside Higher Ed, 12. 6. 2022. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/06/13/peer-review-crisis-creates-problems-journals-and-scholars
Goodman, S. (2022) How Gender Bias Worsened the Peer-Review Crisis. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 15. 12. 2022. https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-gender-bias-worsened-the-peer-review-crisis [2. 6. 2025]
Horbach, S. P., & Halffman, W. (2018). The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review 3(1), 8. doi: 10.1186/s41073-018-0058-y.
Karhulahti, V. M., & Backe, H. J. (2021). Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities. Research Integrity and Peer Review 6, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00116-4
Knöchelmann, M. (2019). Open science in the humanities, or Open humanities? Publications 7(4), 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7040065
Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., & Trinquart, L. (2016). The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: Strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PloS one 11(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166387
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology 64(1), 2-17.
Madacki, S. (2017). Kako procijeniti vrijednost naučno-istraživačkog rada? Policyhub, 6. 2. 2017. https://policyhub.analitika.ba/bs/politike-i-standardi/170 [29. 6. 2025]
Pearson, G. S. (2023). The ongoing importance of peer review. Journal of the American PsychiatricNurses Association 29(6), 445-446. doi:10.1177/10783903231205311
Petrişor, A. I. (2020). Peer review under the ethical lens: possible questions, Bosniaca 25(25), 183-197.
Rowland, F. (2002). The peer‐review process. Learned publishing, 15(4), 247-258.
Ross-Hellauer, T., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2024). Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review. Research Evaluation 33. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae004
Shatz, D. (2004). Peer review: A critical inquiry. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Sizo, A., Lino, A., Rocha, A., & Reis, L. P. (2025). Defining quality in peer review reports: a scoping review. Knowledge and Information Systems 67, 6413-6460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-025-02435-0
Stojanovski, J. (2024). Crtice o znanosti, znanstvenoj komunikaciji i znanstvenom izdavaštvu. Medicina Fluminensis 60(Supplement 1), 23-33.
Stojanovski, J. (2018). Otvoreni recenzijski postupak. In: Grgić Hebrang, I. (Ed.) Otvorenost u znanosti i visokom obrazovanju (pp. 80-92). Zagreb: Školska knjiga. https://fulir.irb.hr/4180/1/959161.Jadranka_poglavlje.pdf
Sveučilište u Mostaru. (2020) Pravilnik o minimalnim uvjetima i postupku izbora u znanstveno-nastavna, umjetničko-nastavna i nastavna zvanja. https://webadmin.sum.ba/api/storage/Pravilnik%20o% 20min_1595831506_51.pdf [25. 7. 2025]
Tennant, J. P., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2020). The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Research integrity and peer review 5(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
Kanton Sarajevo. (2022). Zakon o visokom obrazovanju Kantona Sarajevo. Službene novine Kantona Sarajevo, 36. https://www.paragraf.ba/propisi/kantona- sarajevo/zakon-o-visokom-obrazovanju.html [20. 7. 2025]
BPK. (2021). Zakon o visokom obrazovanju Bosansko-podrinjskog kantona. Službene novine Bosansko-podrinjskog kantona, 4. https://www.paragraf.ba/propisi/bosansko-podrinjski-kanton-gorazde/zakon-o-visokom-obrazovanju.html [20. 7. 2025]
RS. (2024). Zakon o visokom obrazovanju Republike Srpske. Službeni glasnik RS, 107. https://www.paragraf.ba/propisi/republika-srpska/zakon-o-visokom-obrazovanju.html [20. 7. 2025]
ZHK. (2009). Zakon o visokom obrazovanju Zapadnohercegovačkog kantona. Narodne novine Županije Zapadnohercegovačke, 10. https://www.paragraf.ba/propisi/zupanije-zapadnohercegovacke/zakon-o-visokom-obrazovanju.html [10. 7. 2025]
ZDK. (2022). Zakon o visokom obrazovanju Zeničko-dobojskog kantona. Službene novine Zeničko-dobojskog kantona. https://www.paragraf.ba/propisi/zenicko-dobojskog-kantona/zakon-o-visokom-obrazovanju.html [20. 7. 2025]
Vučković-Dekić, L. (2013). Recenzent – najveći prijatelj autora. Biomedicinska istraživanja 4(1), 75-9.
Weiler, J. H. (2012). Peer Review in crisis. European journal of international law 23(2), 309-313.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 BOSNIACA