Please submit your article via Editorial Manager.
Open Access Statement
The journal Contemporary Military Challenges allows a free unlimited access to all its contents without any restrictions and charge upon publication to all users. In accordance with the BOAI definition of open access, all users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as they properly cite the source.
Authors retain copyright in their work, but transfer (assign) the said copyright to the publisher of the journal for managing and publishing their work.
Article Processing Charge (APC)
There are no Article Processing Charges or any other publication charges.
Peer review process
The double-blind review procedure ensures that all articles published in the Contemporary Military Challenges abide by international standards and the rules of good writing. First step of the article quality is made by the editor. The editor checks whether the author has consistently followed the writing instructions and to what extent the content of the contribution falls within the scope of the journal's intended content. The editor suggests improvements, corrections to the authors and points out possible ethical, stylistic or other shortcomings that are against the editorial policy. After his/hers approval of the article two reviewers are assigned to perform a peer review. In case of positive reviews, article goes into a process of technical editing. In case of one negative review or when opinions of reviewers is differing strikingly, a third reviewer is assigned. When minor/major corrections are needed, author is advised to correct and resubmit the article (in case of major corrections, the article goes into the peer review processs once again).
The review procedure is anonymous. A standard form is available on the web page. A reviewer receives an article without the indication of the author and vice versa. Editorial Advisory Board is consulted when opinions are different, especially regarding the classification of articles.
The articles are processed by Similarity Check to avoid plagiarism. The final decision on the article quality is discoursed and decided by the editorial board.
Duties of reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts towards the best possible quality.
Promptness: Reviewers are experts in their field of research. Reviewers are to complete peer reviews within an agreed deadline. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor.
Competence: Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review.
Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to, shared or discussed with others. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Observations and recommendations must be formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript.
Conflicts of interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage or as reviewer’s own. Reviewers who have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should not conduct the peer review.
For more, see the attached file.