Un co rre cte d p ro of J. Serb. Chem. Soc. 80 (0) 1–11 (2015) UDC JSCS–72 Letter to the Editor 1 LETTER TO THE EDITOR 1 A survey on publishing policies of the Journal of the Serbian 2 Chemical Society– On the occasion of the 80th volume 3 OLGICA NEDIĆ1*# and ALEKSANDAR DEKANSKI2# 4 1Institute for the Application of Nuclear Energy (INEP), University of Belgrade, Serbia and 5 2Institute of Chemistry, Technology and Metallurgy, Department of Electrochemistry, 6 University of Belgrade, Serbia 7 (Received 6 March, accepted 6 April 2015) 8 Abstract: Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society (JSCS) is the scientific 9 journal of the Serbian Chemical Society and this year is celebrating 85 years of 10 its publishing and the 80th volume. After so many years of publishing, the idea 11 of the Editorial Board of the JSCS was to investigate the opinion of the authors, 12 reviewers and Sub-Editors concerning the journal and whether their evaluation 13 and suggestions could aid in its improvement. Questionnaires were sent to the 14 three investigated groups as an e-mail link. The responses were analyzed and 15 only the most general and the most important data are presented in this article. 16 The grades, comments and suggestions showed that most of the contributors 17 are satisfied with the present handling and publishing policy of the JSCS, but 18 certain technical aspects should be improved. After a thorough inspection of 19 the data, the Editorial Board decided to introduce a fully automatic on-line 20 system, to speed-up the peer review process, to improve the Instructions to 21 Authors and Reviewer’s Report Form. All these novelties commenced from the 22 beginning of March 2015. 23 Keywords: peer review; publishing; questionnaire; evaluation 24 INTRODUCTION 25 Evaluation of journals, especially the peer review process, has attracted great 26 attention in the last decade. There are number of scientometric methods, mostly 27 of the quantitative type, to express the “value” of the journal.1–3 The best known 28 is the one that measures journal’s impact via the citation index. An intensive 29 debate on the positive and negative aspects of the journal evaluation via the 30 impact factor (IF) has been in progress for a long time, but officially the IF has 31 been recognized as the measure of impact recognition and a tool for journal 32 * Corresponding author. E-mail: olgica@inep.co.rs # Serbian Chemical Society member. doi: 10.2298/JSC150306036N Send back the proof corrections to jscs-proofs@shd.org.rs within next 48 hours! Un co rre cte d p ro of 2 NEDIĆ and DEKANSKI ranking.4 There are other ways to investigate the quality of a periodical and one 33 of which is to determine the opinion of associates of the journal. 34 After so many years of publishing, the idea of the Editorial Board of the 35 Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society (JSCS) was to investigate the opinion of 36 authors, reviewers and Sub-editors concerning the journal and to determine 37 whether their evaluation and suggestions could help in the improvement of the 38 quality of the journal and the managing process, and raise the prestige of the 39 JSCS. Prior to this study, an educational article recommending how to write a 40 good scientific paper was published.6 Both scientific and technical aspect were 41 discussed, as it is equally important to obtain significant research results and to 42 know how to present them. 43 Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, as its name says, is an official 44 journal of the Society. The Society was founded in 1897 and its first bulletin 45 appeared in 1899.6,7 The Journal was first published in 1930 as the Journal of the 46 Chemical Society of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the name was changed in 1947 47 to the Journal of the Chemical Society Belgrade and under the present name, it 48 exists since 1985.7 In this year, the 80th volume of the JSCS is being published. 49 All papers are published only in English. There are 12 issues per volume, 10–13 50 articles per issue and 2000–2200 pages a year. The JSCS is an open access 51 publication, without page charges and with on-line submission. It has been 52 indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded since 1995, in the category 53 Chemistry: Multidisciplinary and its last impact factor (IF 2014) is 0.871 (rank 54 114/157); 5-year IF is 1.009 (rank 105/157)*. 55 The journal is managed as a non-profit making periodical by the members of 56 the Serbian Chemical Society (SCS), who work mostly voluntarily. It is sup-57 ported by membership fees, various institutions of the University of Belgrade, the 58 Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Serbia and 59 occasionally by sponsors. In the last five years, 2130 articles were submitted of 60 which 872 were accepted. During this period, 7 authors complained about reject-61 ion of their papers, 33 withdrew their manuscripts after reviewing and 3 62 manuscripts were recognized as plagiatorism. 63 A questionnaire is a widely recognized method to obtain relatively reliable 64 data on the posed questions and it is used by many publishers. In contrast to the 65 most publishers who interview the authors of accepted papers, it was decided to 66 interview all contributors to the publishing process. It was felt that by examining 67 the entire partnership network, a more reliable overview could be obtained. More-68 over, potential authors, a category of researchers whose manuscripts were not 69 accepted for publication, were also interviewed. In addition, a very important 70 decision was made by the Editor-in-Chief to publish openly the results of the 71 survey. 72 * Data announced in June 2015. Send back the proof corrections to jscs-proofs@shd.org.rs within next 48 hours! Un co rre cte d p ro of JSCS PUBLISHING POLICIES SURVEY 3 Thus, three questionnaires adapted to suit the three investigated population 73 groups were composed and sent as an e-mail link to all participants in the 74 publishing activity of the journal in the last five years. There were cases when 75 individuals performed two or even all three roles, so they received the appro-76 priate number of questionnaires. The questions were composed to evaluate the 77 publishing process in quantitative and qualitative ways, both at the level of peer 78 review and managing, and the results obtained are presented accordingly. 79 METHOD AND APPROACH 80 Study population 81 There were three groups of persons involved in the study. In total, 2422 invitations were 82 sent: 13 for Sub-editors, 980 for reviewers and 1429 for authors. Certain number of invitations 83 returned undelivered (80 for reviewers and 170 for authors). The inclusion criterion for the 84 survey was at least one type of activity in relation to the JSCS over a five-year period 85 (November 2009–October 2014). 86 Questionnaires 87 The three questionnaires contained some questions that were the same for all participants 88 and others that were more specific, suitable for the role played by the surveyed persons (see 89 Supplementary material to this Letter). The participants were asked for their academic title, 90 research field, professional background, previous experience in the same kind of activity that 91 was being investigated in the survey, before being asked direct questions about the JSCS. The 92 survey contained two types of questions: those to be answered by scaling (from 5, excellent to 93 1, poor) and those to be answered by choosing offered responses (in some cases more than 94 one response could be chosen). Finally, in the last section of the survey, the participants were 95 given the opportunity to express their personal suggestions and remarks. 96 The surveys were sent time-shifted: the Sub-Editors first, the reviewers two weeks later 97 and the authors a month later. Two weeks after the first invitation, a reminder was sent to 98 those who had not responded. The reports were collected and analyzed. The results of the 99 survey offered many more correlations and conclusions than presented in this paper, but in 100 order not to overload the article, only the most general and the most important data are shown. 101 Thus, the three surveyed populations were analyzed as entire entities. 102 Data analysis 103 Data on questions that were answered by scaling (5–1) are given as an average grade. 104 Data on questions that could be answered by multiple responses were grouped as the 105 frequency of each response and are reported as such (in % of the total number of quest-106 ionnaires). Suggestions and remarks were grouped according to their similarity and are rep-107 orted as lists. 108 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 109 Twelve Sub-Editors responded to the survey (92 % of the interviewed), 309 110 reviewers (43 %) and 511 authors (41 %). Depending on the type of data, the 111 analyzed results are presented graphically (in the case of frequency distributions), 112 in tables (in the case of scaling) or in lists (suggestions and remarks). All surveys 113 were analyzed separately and the results reported by the Sub-Editors are given in 114 Send back the proof corrections to jscs-proofs@shd.org.rs within next 48 hours! Un co rre cte d p ro of 4 NEDIĆ and DEKANSKI Fig. 1, Table I and Frame 1, for the reviewers in Fig. 2, Table II and Frame 2, and 115 for the authors in Fig. 3, Table III and Frame 3. 116 117 Fig. 1. The responses of Sub-Editors to particular questions, expressed as frequency 118 distributions (individual answers). 119 Comment [L1]: The question D should read “do you” and not “you do” Send back the proof corrections to jscs-proofs@shd.org.rs within next 48 hours! Un co rre cte d p ro of JSCS PUBLISHING POLICIES SURVEY 5 TABLE I. Sub-Editors’ responses to questions that were recorded by scaling 120 Question Grade Average grade 5 4 3 2 1 Number of responses Comprehensiveness of the Guide for Authors 4 6 2 0 0 4.2 Choice of the questions for reviewers in the form 2 7 3 0 0 3.9 Communication with the Editorial Office 9 2 1 0 0 4.7 FRAME 1. Sub-Editors’ major suggestions and remarks grouped by topics 121 1. Introduction of fully automatic on-line system for submission and management of manuscripts 2. Improvement of the Instructions to Authors (considerable number of inappropriate figures) 3. High tendency of potential reviewers to refuse the invitation to review 4. Examination of manuscripts by use of software to detect plagiarism Sub-Editors were first asked about the procedure they conduct while search-122 ing for reviewers and their general opinion on this process. They responded that 123 they most often find reviewers by using scientific databases (Scopus, PubMed) or 124 by asking colleagues who they know (Fig. 1A). In the first round, some Sub-Edi-125 tors invited only one or two reviewers, whereas others invited more, even more 126 than four (Fig. 1B). The responses to this question illustrate the different indi-127 vidual approaches of the Sub-Editors to peer review. Six Sub-Editors conduct a 128 second round of search for reviewers in the case of less than 25 % of the 129 manuscripts, while another six reported a greater number of papers that could not 130 be finalized after the first call (Fig. 1C). The number of unanswered calls for peer 131 review is rather high (expressed as the percentage of the total number of calls in 132 Fig. 1D). Sub-Editors found between 1 and 15 % of reviewers’ reports inade-133 quate (Fig. 1E), due to a complete absence of peer review (“publish as is” in con-134 trast to other reports that suggested major revision or even rejection) or due to 135 unprofessional conduct of reviewers (humiliating or malicious attitudes). As for 136 the quality of the reports in terms of their usefulness to authors to improve the 137 manuscripts, ten Sub-Editors evaluated the reports as mostly good, while two 138 Sub-Editors stated that they receive the same number of good and poor reports. 139 Responses to this question probably illustrate the different individual criteria of 140 Sub-Editors. On the grading scale, Sub-Editors valued relatively highly the tech-141 nical aspects of the publishing process (Table I), giving an overall average grade 142 of 4.3. To improve the work of the JSCS, most Sub-Editors suggested a complete 143 on-line submission and management system (Frame 1). 144 Reviewers who responded to the survey were from Serbia (43 % of the total 145 number) and from other countries (57 %, Fig. 2A). Slightly more than half 146 reviewers defined themselves as chemists (Fig. 2B) and approximately 70 % 147 were experienced reviewers (Fig. 2C). Reviewers accept to review manuscripts 148 Comment [N2]: Is this term related to Instructions to Authors and is there any connection to the “Instruction for Authors” as it appears on JSCS website? If it is, then please choose unique term throughout the paper, maybe the best choice is the term officially mentioned at the JSCS website. Send back the proof corrections to jscs-proofs@shd.org.rs within next 48 hours! Un co rre cte d p ro of 6 NEDIĆ and DEKANSKI for the JSCS for many reasons, but the predominant one is the professional ethics 149 of an expert who feels that it is part of his scientific activity (Fig. 2D). Reviewers 150 graded technical aspects of the peer review with an average grade of 4.0 (Table 151 II). Most reviewers (58 %) either had no additional remarks or expressed an 152 affirmative opinion in a free form of comments and the greatest number of sug-153 gestions were focused on the introduction of a complete on-line system that 154 would enable easier submission and communication (Frame 2). 155 156 Fig. 2. Reviewers’ responses to particular questions expressed as frequency distributions. 157 TABLE II. Reviewers’ responses to questions that were recorded by scaling 158 Question Grade Average grade 5 4 3 2 1 Share of the number of responses,% Comprehensiveness of the Reviewer’s Report Form 20 57 23 1 0 4.0 Period given for reviewing 20 51 25 4 0 3.9 Communication with Sub-Editors and Editor 40 39 18 3 0 4.2 Send back the proof corrections to jscs-proofs@shd.org.rs within next 48 hours! Un co rre cte d p ro of JSCS PUBLISHING POLICIES SURVEY 7 FRAME 2. Reviewers’ major suggestions and remarks grouped by topics (number of 159 individual comments) 160 58 % of all comments were affirmative +: 1. Introduction of fully automatic on-line system for submission and management of manuscripts 26 2. Free access to Scopus or other databases for the reviewers 11 3. Prolongation of the period for reviewing 8 4. Improvement of the Instructions for Reviewers 7 5. Information to reviewers on the final decision on the manuscript 5 6. Introduction of scaling in the Reviewer’s Report Form 4 Authors who responded to the survey were from Serbia (30 % of the total 161 number), as well as from the other countries (70 %, Fig. 3A). The affiliation of 162 the authors illustrates the international character of the JSCS. The main research 163 fields of the authors who submit papers to the JSCS were organic chemistry, 164 analytical chemistry, biochemistry and biotechnology, environmental and inorg-165 anic chemistry (Fig. 3B). Early-stage researchers made up 31 % of all authors 166 and the others were more experienced ones (Fig. 3C). The main reasons for sub-167 mitting their manuscripts to the JSCS, authors report as: quality and the impact of 168 the journal, no publishing fee, previous positive experience and the speed of 169 reviewing (Fig. 3D). Grading of the technical parameters related to JSCS, inc-170 luding periods for reviewing and publishing, resulted in an average grade of 3.7. 171 As for the suggestions and remarks, besides no additional comments or affirm-172 ative opinion of 50 % of the interviewed authors, many contributors stated that 173 they would appreciate faster reviewing and publishing after manuscript accept-174 ance (approximately 30 % of suggestions). A significant number of authors sug-175 gested improvement of the Instructions to Authors and reduction of the technical 176 requirements for submission (especially for figures). Additionally, a few authors 177 suggested a more careful choice of reviewers and a few recommended elevation 178 of the criteria for article acceptance. 179 After collection of the surveys, the responses were summarized and anal-180 yzed. A meeting of the Editorial Board was organized on this occasion and all 181 points were discussed individually. Certain conclusions were drawn enabling a 182 detailed overview of the entire publishing process of the JSCS, which further led 183 to decisions directed at improvement of the process. 184 All participants in the survey, in one way or another, strongly supported the 185 idea of a fully automatic on-line system: a) Sub-Editors in order not to have to 186 remind or thank reviewers by themselves and not to have to archive all reports 187 and letters to authors as their own database, b) reviewers in order to have the 188 ability to quickly review the abstract on-line, to have a direct choice to accept or 189 decline to review and to have access to an on-line Report Form and c) authors in 190 order to facilitate the submission step and to speed-up the reviewing process. 191 Send back the proof corrections to jscs-proofs@shd.org.rs within next 48 hours! Un co rre cte d p ro of 8 NEDIĆ and DEKANSKI Members of the Editorial Board agreed that a complete on-line system would 192 improve the management of the JSCS and the decision was made to practice 193 exclusively on-line communication from March 2015. 194 195 Fig. 3. Authors’ responses to particular questions expressed as frequency distributions. 196 Send back the proof corrections to jscs-proofs@shd.org.rs within next 48 hours! Un co rre cte d p ro of JSCS PUBLISHING POLICIES SURVEY 9 TABLE III. Authors’ responses to questions that were recorded by scaling 197 Question Grade Average grade 5 4 3 2 1 Share of the number of responses,% Comprehensiveness of the Guide for Authors 22 41 27 5 5 3.7 Usefulness of the Reviewers’ Reports 19 46 27 5 3 3.7 Period for reviewing 22 36 30 9 3 3.6 Period for publishing 19 38 31 7 5 3.6 Communication with Sub-Editors and Editor 35 37 23 3 2 4.0 FRAME 3. Major suggestions and remarks of authors, grouped by topics (number of indi-198 vidual comments) 199 50 % of all comments were affirmative +: 1. Speeding-up reviewing and publishing process 150 2. Improvement of the Instructions for authors and reduction of technical requirements for manuscript submission 88 3. Better choice of reviewers and “blind” review 30 4. Promotion and advertising of the JSCS 15 5. Increasing the number of published articles per year 12 6. Periodical special issues 5 7. Invitation of respectable scientists to write review articles 5 8. Addition of new research fields (chemical education, nano-chemistry, chemistry in agriculture) 5 It was noticed that similar number of reviewers suggested longer (expected) 200 and shorter (unexpected) period for reviewing which initiated deeper data 201 analysis. Reviewers who were also authors could not separate these two roles and 202 the impression of the author dominated the impression of the reviewer. 203 Authors who suggested faster publishing do not seem to differentiate clearly 204 between peer review and publishing. Members of the Editorial Board agreed to 205 contribute personally to speed-up the reviewing part by faster communication 206 with (potential) reviewers and/or by increasing the number of initially invited 207 reviewers. It is, however, difficult to stimulate researchers to review for the 208 JSCS. Many invited persons do not respond at all, many refuse, some accept but 209 never send the report and a considerable number of reviewers send inappropriate 210 reports. The reasons for such a situation may be seen as a lack of profession-211 alism, not very good opinion on the JSCS based on the journal’s ranking and/or 212 prejudices. Potential reviewers from West Europe and North America are among 213 those who most frequently do not respond or decline to review. A similar attitude 214 towards the journal is also valid for the (potential) authors. When nationalities of 215 the JSCS authors were analyzed, it became obvious that contributors from West 216 Europe and North America are rare. 217 The second part of the publishing process, which includes the actual print-218 ing, can hardly be faster, as there are many accepted papers and the JSCS is 219 Send back the proof corrections to jscs-proofs@shd.org.rs within next 48 hours! Un co rre cte d p ro of 10 NEDIĆ and DEKANSKI already publishing more articles per year than similar non-profitable journals run 220 by scientific societies. Since accepted papers receive DOI numbers and are avail-221 able in an on-line version of the journal few days after their acceptance, the print-222 ing step is not crucial from the point of article visibility by the scientific com-223 munity. Steps will be taken to see how this part of the process could also be 224 improved. 225 It was interesting to notice that certain number of authors suggested the 226 application of more rigorous criteria for the evaluation of manuscripts. In their 227 opinion, some of the published articles should not have been accepted. Thus, a 228 considerable number of our authors have the potential to produce high quality 229 papers and they will certainly be engaged as reviewers if they agree. 230 Instructions to Authors and Reviewer’s Report form were revised and new 231 versions up-loaded. Moreover, the Editorial board decided to reduce the technical 232 requirements for figures and to make small alterations if necessary without 233 asking authors to do so. 234 For the moment, the comments and suggestions that raised the greatest con-235 cerns were dealt with and some new approaches applied. Other conclusions that 236 could be drawn from the responses in the questionnaires and members of the 237 Editorial board will continue to analyze the data, both at the level of the entire 238 journal and at the level of sections run by particular Sub-Editors. 239 The Editorial Board thanks all participants of the survey who have helped to 240 evaluate the publishing process in the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society 241 and to become aware of the imperfections. It is also hoped that the actions 242 undertaken after the survey will be welcomed by past, present and future contri-243 butors. 244 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL 245 The questionnaires that the sub-editors, reviewers and authors were requested to fill out 246 OnLine are available electronically from http://www.shd.org.rs/JSCS/, or from the corres-247 ponding authors on request, as portable document format (pdf) files. 248 Acknowledgment. This survey and article resulted as part of scientific activity in the 249 COST Action TD1306 “New Frontiers of Peer Review (PEERE)”. 250 И З В О Д 251 АНКЕТА О ЧАСОПИСУ „JOURNAL OF THE SERBIAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY“ – 252 ОБЕЛЕЖАВАЊЕ ШТАМПАЊА 80. ГОДИШТА 253 ОЛГИЦА НЕДИЋ1 и АЛЕКСАНДАР ДЕКАНСКИ2 254 1 Институт за примену нукеларне енергије (ИНЕП), Универзитет у Београду и 2 Институт за хемију, 255 технологију и металургију, Центар за електрохемију, Универзитет у Београду 256 Часопис Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society (JSCS) је научни часопис Српског 257 хемијског друштва и ове године се обележава 85 година његовог излажења и излазак 80. 258 годишта. После толико година објављивања научних радова, жеља Уредништва је била да 259 утврди шта аутори, рецензенти и подручни уредници мисле о часопису и уређивачкој 260 Send back the proof corrections to jscs-proofs@shd.org.rs within next 48 hours! Un co rre cte d p ro of JSCS PUBLISHING POLICIES SURVEY 11 политици, и могу ли њихове процене и предлози помоћи да се делатност часописа по-261 бољша. Упитници анкете су послати е-поштом испитаницима. Добијени одговори су ана-262 лизирани и овде су приказани само најопштији и најзначајнији подаци. Оцене, комен-263 тари и предлози су показали да је већина учесника у поступку објављивања задовољна 264 постојећим начином рада и уређивачком политиком, али мисле и да би се одређени 265 технички детаљи поступка могли побољшати. Након сагледавања добијених одговора, 266 Уредништво је донело одлуку да уведе високо-аутоматизовани кориснички сервис за 267 пријаву и обраду радова и тако убрза поступак рецензирања и објављивања, и да појед-268 ностави и додатно појасни Упутство за ауторе и Рецензентски формулар. Све наведене 269 новине су уведене 1. марта 2015. 270 (Примљено 6. марта, прихваћено 6. априла 2015) 271 REFERENCES 272 1. K. Iyengar, V. Balijepally, Scientometrics 102 (2015) 5 273 2. J. Garner, A. L. Porter, N. C. Newman, Scientometrics 100 (2014) 687 274 3. C. W. Holsapple, J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 59 (2008) 166 275 4. P. O. Seglen, Br. Med. J. 314 (1997) 498 276 5. A. Dekanski, J. Serb. Chem. Soc. 79 (2014) 1561 277 6. S. Bojović, Bull. Soc. Chim. 49 (1984) 751 278 7. A. R. Despić, J. A. Jovanović, B. Ž. Nikolić, D. Vitorović, The Serbian Chemical Society. 279 History, organization, activity, Serbian Chemical Society, Belgrade, 1996. 280 Send back the proof corrections to jscs-proofs@shd.org.rs within next 48 hours! << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /CMYK /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments true /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ARA /BGR /CHS /CHT /CZE /DAN /DEU /ESP /ETI /FRA /GRE /HEB /HRV (Za stvaranje Adobe PDF dokumenata najpogodnijih za visokokvalitetni ispis prije tiskanja koristite ove postavke. Stvoreni PDF dokumenti mogu se otvoriti Acrobat i Adobe Reader 5.0 i kasnijim verzijama.) /HUN /ITA /JPN /KOR /LTH /LVI /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken die zijn geoptimaliseerd voor prepress-afdrukken van hoge kwaliteit. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR /POL /PTB /RUM /RUS /SKY /SLV /SUO /SVE /TUR /UKR /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents best suited for high-quality prepress printing. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice