Please consider our guidelines for authors, reviewers, and editors (adapted on December 1, 2023)
Manuscripts should be submitted in English and/or Croatian using our paper submission web page (paper template and web link can be seen at this web page). It should contain (a) an Abstract, (b) Introduction, giving an overview and stating the purpose, (c) a main body, describing in sufficient detail the materials or methods used and the results or ideas developed, (d) a conclusion or summary and (e) literature/bibliography list.
Referencing AI-generated material as the primary source is not acceptable.
Criteria for acceptance will be appropriateness to the field of the journal Scope and Aims, taking into account the merit of the contents and presentation. The manuscript should be concise and should conform to professional standards of English and/or Croatian usage and grammar. Manuscripts are received with the understanding that they have not been previously published, are not being submitted for publication elsewhere, and that if the work received official sponsorship, it has been duly released for publication. Submissions are referred, and authors will usually be notified within 6 to 8 weeks.
Title page. The title page should list (1) the article; (2) the author's name and affiliation at the time the work has conducted; (3) corresponding author's address, and e-mail address if available; (4) a concise running title.
Abstract. An abstract should be submitted that does not exceed 300 words in length. This should be typed on a separate sheet following the title page.
Reference citations with the text should have the following form: (author, year). For example, (Kent, 1949). Specific page numbers are optional e.g. (Kent, 1949, p. 56). A citation with two authors would read (Shulsky & Godson, 1991); three or more authors would be: (Smith et al., 1995). When the author is mentioned in the text, only the date and optional page number should appear in parenthesis - e.g. According to Kent (1949),...
References should be listed alphabetically by author at the end of the article. Journal names should not be abbreviated. Multiple citations by the same author should be listed chronological and should each spell out the author's name. Articles appearing in the same year should have the following format: Smith, M. (1995a) ..., Smith, M. (1995b) ...
Examples:
- Journal reference: Alexander, M. S. (1988). Introduction: Knowing Your Friends, Assessing Your Allies - Perspectives on Intra-Alliance Intelligence. Intelligence and National Security, 13(1). 1-17.
- Edited book reference: Gries, D. D. (1995). New Links Between Intelligence and Policy. In H. B. Westerfield (ed.). Inside CIA's Private World. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
- Book reference: Andrew, C. (1985). Secret Service: The Making of the British Intelligence Community. London: Sceptre.
- Conference paper reference: Habsburg, O. v. (1998). A Security Policy for Europe. In M. Sopta & M. Marnika (eds.). Croatia as a Stabilizing Factor For Peace In Europe: Proceedings from an International Symposium Held in Zagreb, Croatia 11 - 14 April 1996. Zagreb: Croatian Centre of Strategic Studies. 27-34.
Book reviews should be preceded by full publication details including price: eg. Adams, J. (1998). The next World War: The warriors and weapons of the new battlefields in Cyberspace. London: Hutchinson. Pp. 366, biblio., index. L 18.99. ISBN 0-09-180232-6.
Footnotes should be kept to a minimum. They should be indicated in the text with numbered superscripts, and the corresponding notes should be collected at the end of the article, before the references, under the heading Notes.
Illustrations Graphs and diagrams should be supplied as drawings suitable for reproduction with at least 300 dpi just like photographs. Half-tone illustrations should be sharp, well-contrasted glossy prints. Tables should contain a number and a title at the top, and all columns and rows should have headings. Figures should contain a number and a title at a bottom of the Figure. All illustrations should be cited in the text as Figure 1, Figure 2, etc. or Table 1, Table 2, etc. All those documents needs to have a proper quatation.
Upon acceptance of a manuscript for publication, authors have to provide a one-paragraph biographical sketch or a paper and wider for publishing on our web page.
We strongly recommend using the following article submission template.
You can upload your paper for a review using this link: https://review.nsf-journal.hr/
Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (extract)
https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9
Peer review in all its forms plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust, and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and unaware of their ethical obligations. COPE has produced some guidelines which set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process in research publication. The aim has been to make them generic so that they can be applied across disciplines.
Peer reviewers play a role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The peer review process depends to a large extent on the trust and willing participation of the scholarly community and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer review process, but may come to the role without any guidance and be unaware of their ethical obligations. Journals have an obligation to provide transparent policies for peer review, and reviewers have an obligation to conduct reviews in an ethical and accountable manner. Clear communication between the journal and the reviewers is essential to facilitate consistent, fair and timely review. COPE has heard cases from its members related to peer review issues and bases these guidelines, in part, on the collective experience and wisdom of the COPE Forum participants. It is hoped they will provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for editors and publishers in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.
Peer review, for the purposes of these guidelines, refers to reviews provided on manuscript submissions to journals, but can also include reviews for other platforms and apply to public commenting that can occur pre- or post-publication. Reviews of other materials such as preprints, grants, books, conference proceeding submissions, registered reports (preregistered protocols), or data will have a similar underlying ethical framework, but the process will vary depending on the source material and the type of review requested. The model of peer review will also influence elements of the process.
Full text of Code of Ethics of NSF and St. George Association is presented here .
Puna verzija Etičkog kodeksa NSF i USJ može se pročitati i preuzeti na ovoj poveznici.
Evaluation process
First step in evaluation of received papers is editor-in-chief. The editor-in-chief will also do a plagiarism-checking (in cooperation with University North and Dr. Franjo Tuđman Defense and Security University - https://www.turnitin.com/). We will also check paper proposals against usage of AI in writing it via web page The GPTZero Dashboard or any other suitable and high-quality aplication that can help us to detect usage of AI technoogy in writing the papers.
If editor-in-chief is not satisfied with the paper, it will be rejected. If the answer is positive, then the paper is going to be sent to the reviewers according to hers/his expertise. Usually time frame for first evaluation is 6-8 weeks. First review comments are going to be sent to the author(s) for (not)acceptance. If author(s) does not want to accept comments and recommendations, that has to be explained with valid and strong arguments. In that case editor-in-chief and expert members within editorial board will took a final decision about the paper publication.
If the author(s) whose paper was rejected during evaluation process is not satisfied with the Editors decision and explanation, author can proceed with future activities in accordance with the COPE guidelines available on their website: https://publicationethics.org/management).
Upute za recenzente
Časopis NSF održava visoke znanstvene standarde objavljivanja i stoga zahtijevamo temeljitu procjenu znanstvene vrijednosti rukopisa te posebno, recenzentske komentare o sljedećim točkama:
- Izvornost rukopisa (je li rukopis izvoran?).
- Logička koherentnost, struktura, čitljivost i duljina rukopisa.
- Trenutni interes, vrijednost i relevantnost, općenito kao i u odnosu na tematski fokus časopisa, npr. unapređuje li predloženi rukopis postojeća te nudi nova znanja?
- Jesu li pitanja koja se obrađuju na odgovarajući način raspravljena i analizirana te jesu li zaključci potkrijepljeni relevantnim i vjerodostojnim izvorima i podacima prikazanim u rukopisu.
- Je li korištenje izvora etičko, savjesno i metodološki prihvatljivo.
- Jesu li reference zadovoljavajuće te u skladu s uredničkim smjernicama časopisa.
- Je li rukopis dovoljno kvalitetan da ga objavimo kao recenzirani akademski članak?
- Treba istaknuti pozitivne strane rukopisa. Sve druge primjedbe – uključujući prijedloge za poboljšanja – također treba spomenuti.
Svoju ocjenu, nakon gore navedenih točaka, možete unijeti u obrazac za recenziju koji se nalazi na dnu ove web stranice. Pored obrasca za recenziju, svoje komentare možete unijeti i izravno u datoteku rukopisa. U svakom slučaju, procjena procjena recenzenta treba jasno navesti preporučujete li izravno objavljivanje bez daljnjeg rada na rukopisu, preporučujete li objavljivanje nakon poboljšanja ili ne preporučujete objavljivanje.
Prilikom davanja ocjene o radu, recenzenti se trebaju vodit po sljedećim ocjenama:
- Izvorni znanstveni rad - sadrži do sad još neobjavljene rezultate izvornih znanstvenih istraživanja, stavova, zaključaka;
- Prethodno priopćenje - iako sadrži nove rezultate zanstvenih istraživanja, stavova i/ili zaključaka, a potrebno ga je brzo objaviti
- Pregledni rad - sadrži izvoran prikaz pojedinog tematskog područja koje je na jasan, prihvatljiv napisano te daje doprinos znanosti
- Stručni rad - rad koji sadrži korisne i uporabljive prijedloge, stavove i mišljenja iz struke i za struku, te u pravilu ne predstavlja rezultat izvornih istraživanja.
Guidelines for reviewers
The NSF journal maintains high scientific standards of publication, and we therefore request a thorough evaluation of the scholarly merit of the manuscript and, in particular, comments on the following points:
- The originality of the manuscript (is it an original manuscript?).
- The logical coherence, structure, legibility and length of the manuscript.
- The current interest, value and relevance, in general and in relation to the journal’s northern focus, e.g. does the manuscript advance new knowledge?
- Whether the issues addressed are discussed and analyzed in a proper way, and whether the conclusions are supported by the sources and data presented in the manuscript.
- Whether the use of sources is conscientious, ethicaly and methodologically acceptable.
- Whether the references are satisfactory and in accordance with the journal’s editorial guidelines. (The journal’s Author Guidelines can be found here.)
- Has the manuscript otherwise sufficient quality to be published as a peer-reviewed academic article?
Positive aspects of the manuscript should be emphasized. Any other remarks – including proposals for improvements – should also be mentioned.
Your evaluation, following the points listed above, can be entered into the Review form found at the bottom of this web page. In addition to or in lieu of the Review form, you can make comments directly in the manuscript file. Either way, your evaluation should clearly state whether you recommend publication, recommend publication after improvements, or do not recommend publication.
When you are writing review, you should be guided by the following definitions:
- Original scientific paper - contains hitherto unpublished results of original scientific research, views and conclusions;
- Preliminary communication - although it contains new results of scientific research, views and/or conclusions, and needs to be published quickly;
- Review paper - contains an original overview of a particular thematic area that is written in a clear, acceptable way and contributes to the science;
- Professional paper - article that contains useful and usable suggestions, attitudes and opinions from the experts and for the experts, and, as a rule, does not represent the result of original research.
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
I hereby certify that I am the sole author of paper(s) sent for evaluation to the National Security and the Future Journal and that no part of this paper(s) has been published or submitted for publication to any other publisher.
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, my paper(s) does not infringe upon anyone’s copyright nor violate any proprietary rights and that any ideas, techniques, quotations, or any other material from the work of other people included in my paper(s), published or otherwise, are fully acknowledged in accordance with the standard referencing practices.
Furthermore, to the extent that I have included copyrighted material, I certify that I have obtained a written permission from the copyright owner(s) to include such material(s) in my paper(s) and have included copies of such copyright clearances to my appendix.
I declare that this paper(s) is not an AI generated paper and that I did not use any AI generated content as the primary source.
Place, date:
Author (Name and Surname):
Signature:
We recommend using the following Originality of Papers template.
Please download a template for reviewers
Preuzmite predložak za recenzente