For authors

Peer Review

The evaluation process

    The review stage of the received papers is a particularly important procedure prior to the publication of the papers. The team of reviewers has an important mission to ensure the viability and scientific quality of the authors’ contribution, to evaluate in advance the impact of the journal. That is why the reviewers have the freedom to suggest possible corrections, improvements on the content and form, but also on compliance with the technical editing requirements imposed by the editorial committee. The quality of the translation of the works is also important for us, in this sense the jurnal policy is to provide the opportunity for the authors to publish their works in their native language and the second language in English.

    This concept was adopted by the editorial board in consultation with the scientific committee at the proposal of the Editor-in-Chief. The aim is to provide the possibility aside as the authors to be able to express themselves more freely, to provide for the understanding of the text and the research itself and secondly to provide an international accessibility on the knowledge of the contributions for the first time. The originality of the scientific works stands first in what represents the real, unique contribution.

    Cercetări și Studii. Etno-Muzicologie, Bizantinologie, Etnologie (Research and Studies. Ethno-Musicology, Byzantinology, Ethnology), applies the review model of the articles sent for publication being subject to this evaluation and selection by the best specialists in the fields of expertise. The review we apply includes the double-blind peer-review model. In this context, the parties not knowing the identity of the author or authors of an article, of the respective reviewer. The editor designates the reviewer who has a role to avoid potential conflicts of interest, being the only one who is in contact with the identity of the author or authors, as well as with that of the reviewer. In particular situations where the double-blind peer-review model is not possible, then the single-blind peer-review system will be applied. In this situation only the reviewer knows the identity of the author, but the author does not know that of the reviewer.The review process

    The review process

    Procesul de recenzare include următoarele etape:

    1. Receiving items:
    Papers are sent by email to the Editor-in-Chief or/and the Deputy Editor-in-Chief receives the articles from which they will be directed to the editors.

    2. Evaluation by the editors:
    At this stage, it is aimed that the works correspond to the theme of the magazine’s objectives, the conditions and the format of the specified technical and content norms that can be found in the section Instructions for authors. Following this first evaluation, the work may be accepted or rejected, the author being notified of the failure to meet the requirements.

    3. Evaluation of reviewers:
    If the papers have been accepted following the evaluation of the editors, they, after unsealing the identifying elements of the authors, will send them to two or more reviewers. We must mention that the reviewers are specialists in the field, with nationally and internationally recognized skills and expertise. In the stage of choosing the reviewers, the aim is to avoid possible conflicts of interest. In this situation, the reviewer can additionally propose inviting peer-reviewers who meet the requirements mentioned above and who are not part of the journal’s permanent scientific team. After evaluating the papers, the reviewers fill in the provided review form.

    The following procedure includes the submission by the peer-reviewer to the editor of the completed review form, which will contain the following possible and conclusive recommendations: acceptance for publication of the work without requesting changes; acceptance for publication of the work with recommendations to change; rejection of the work for publication.

    After reading the reviewers’ reports, the editor forwards to the author of the paper one of the following decisions regarding acceptance or rejection:

    • Acceptance without recommendations for modification and completion of the paper for publication in the journal.
    • Acceptance with minor changes and additions for acceptance for publication, with recommendations from the reviewer to be sent to the author for resolution by a set deadline.
    • Acceptance for publication with recommendation of major changes to be sent to the author.
    • The recommendations made by the reviewer will be resolved by the author at a well-established deadline. Once the paper with corrections is received back, it will be sent back to the peer-reviewers, who have the power to decide on acceptance. Rejection for publication may occur if prior peer-review requirements are not met through direct consultation with the Editor-in-Chief. Accepting or rejecting a paper for publication in the magazine rests with the editor-in-chief.
    • In case of rejection, the author of the work will receive a notification stating the reasons that led to the rejection. In this situation, the paper can no longer be resubmitted to the journal’s editors, even if the recommendations of the peer-reviewers have been met.
    • • The rejection of a paper can apply especially in the case of some forms of plagiarism, the inclusion of unreal data and information. All this can constitute the decision of the editor-in-chief ab initio that leads to the final rejection of the paper.

    NO POSTING FEE!