editorial-process

Home

Review Process

All the manuscripts submitted for publication to the journal's Editorial Board undergo a double-blind peer review procedure, necessary for assessing the quality of scientific information, the relevance to the field, the appropriateness of the scientific writing style, the compliance with the style and technical requirements of our journal, etc.

The reviewers are selected from the national and international members of the editorial and scientific board, as well as from among other reviewers who assess the article drafts, commenting and making recommendations. The reviewers should be objective and not have any conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders. All the articles should be treated confidentially. One important responsibility for the reviewers is alerting the editor regarding any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to the one under review.

Manuscripts submitted to the journal are subject to the following review procedure:
• The initial review by the Editorial Board;
• The double-blind review process for the selected articles. The reviewers send their suggestions to the authors and their recommendations to the editors. If at least one of the reviewers considers that the article does not fulfil the scientific terms of publication, the Editorial Board may refuse its publication;
• The acceptance or the rejection based on the basis of the objective judgment of reviewers.

____________________________________________

Evaluation Form

In order to take the most appropriate decision regarding the manuscripts submitted to the journal, the Editorial Board required the reviewers to respond to and comment on the following questions concerning:
• the content of the paper (its significance to the journal's profile, the clarity of the research objectives formulated by the author(s), the novelty and the importance of the results in need to be published, the aspects concerning the methodology, the relevance of the references);
• the writing style (the concurrence between the title and the content of the manuscript, the ability of the abstract to summarize the main aspects of the paper, the structure of the paper, the clarity and the accuracy of the terminology, the relevance of the conclusions);
• some additional comments;
• the confidential remarks to the editors (if needed);
• the final recommendations (the reviewers should indicate their own opinion as to whether the paper is acceptable for publication, by selecting one of the options "accepted in the present form", "accepted with minor revisions", "accepted with major revisions" or "rejected").