About the Journal

Beoiberística is a scientific journal, established by the Department of Iberian Studies in February 2016, and published by the Faculty of Philology at the University of Belgrade.

It is issued as an electronic journal form, published annually and open to all potential authors, contributors, and readers. It publishes papers from various branches of Iberian, Latin American and comparative studies in linguistics, literature or culture. It brings original and scientific articles about all relevant and current topics in the field of modern studies of philology. The last section of each issue is dedicated to reviews of new publications dealing with all Iberian, Latin American and comparative topics.

The journal publishes papers written in Spanish, English, Catalan, Portuguese and Serbian language.

It is an Open Access journal, that does not charge submission or processing fees for authors.

 

Beoiberística is indexed in:

ERIH PLUS (European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences), DOAJ (The Directory of Open Access Journals), Latindex (Online Regional Information System for Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal), MLA (International Bibliography, Directory of Periodicals), CEEOL (Central and Eastern European Online Library), EBSCO host, PKP Index, REDIB (Red Iberoamericana de Innovación y Conocimiento Científico), MIAR (Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals), Index Islamicus Online, Portal del Hispanismo (Instituto Cervantes), Dialnet.

Peer Review Process

All the papers that meet the formal and technical requirements will be sent anonymously to two peer reviewers, experts in the specialized field of work, who will evaluate the relevance, originality, methodological soundness, scientific contribution and the manner of presenting materials in their work. Upon completion of peer review, the authors will be notified of the results of this process. If the reviewers require any changes in the work, the authors will have a two-week period at their disposal to enter all the changes, after which the work will be re-reviewed. They will then be notified of final acceptance or rejection of the paper. If the two reviewerś opinions diverge, the editors and members of the editorial board will decide on the publication of a certain work.

Publication Frequency

Beoiberística is published one issue per year.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The publication of an article in a double peer-reviewed journal BEOIBERÍSTICA is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. It is therefore necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the editor (and the editorial board), the peer reviewer and the publisher.

The Department of Iberian Studies and especially the Faculty of Philology, as publisher of the journal  BEOBERÍSTICA, take our duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, the Faculty of Philology (University of Belgrade) and the editorial board of BEOIBERÍSTICA will assist in communication with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.

Our publication ethics, malpractice guidelines and statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and on existing Elsevier policies.

Duties of authors

Reporting standards: authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. 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 constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention: authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and plagiarism: the authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication: an author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation as the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Acknowledgement of sources: proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Authorship of the paper: authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate 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.

Hazards and human subjects: if the work involves the use of human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subject must always be observed.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: all authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

Fundamental errors in published works: when an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her 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 the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

Duties of the editor and editorial board

Publication decisions: the editor of the journal BEOIBERÍSTICA is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may consult with editorial board or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play: the editor evaluates manuscripts solely for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality: the editor and any editorial staff do not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript are not used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask another member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections in competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations: an editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction  with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institution and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Duties of reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions: peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness: any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality: any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity: reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of sources: reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest: unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask another member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

Malpractice statement

Academic misconduct in any form will not be tolerated by BEOIBERÍSTICA. In cases of suspected misconduct (plagiarism, fraud, breached intellectual property rights, etc.) an editorial panel will be formed to evaluate the substance of the claim. In the case of supported evidence, the paper in question will be rejected for consideration in BEOIBERÍSTICA and all authors and their affiliations will be informed. In cases where the paper has already been published before the misconduct was discovered, a retraction by authors or by the BEOIBERÍSTICA board will have to take place and the case will be made public. Evident cases of misconduct may result in a permanent ban from future submission to BEOIBERÍSTICA. All appeals regarding the panel’s decisions have to go through the Editor-in-Chief and should be submitted within 30 days of the decision date.