Tema plagiatului este tot mai mult discutata in ultima vreme. Aparitia unor programe performante de cautare si identificare a similitudinilor intre texte [...]
A forum for responsible and ethical research publishing – Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Editing rules (peer-review protocol)
The manuscripts will be submitted both as attachment to the email in Word format (to email@example.com) and/or in print (to the following address: Str. Iancu Capitanu Nr. 42, cod 021364, Bucuresti, Romania) in 2 copies, accompanied by a floppy disk or a CD.Professional photo processing, scanning, graph processing - if needed - are the responsibility of the editing team.
The manuscript will be immediately registered, and the registration number will be communicated at the earliest convenience to the authors, by e-mail.
Note: The authors must provide a correspondence e-mail address.
After manuscript receipt, the corresponding author will receive a short e-mail confirming the receipt which will contain the registration number, the date the manuscript was received, and the fact that the manuscript was handed out to the subject editor (the specialized member of the Editorial Board). The Editor-in-chief or one of the deputy editors will hand the manuscript to the subject editors.
The initial responsibilities of the subject editors consist of verifying if the manuscript complies with the editing criteria.
– If the manuscript does not comply with the criteria, the subject editor will send a short email to the corresponding author, with the request to rewrite the manuscript according to the editorial criteria.
– If there are serious errors of content and/or editing, the manuscript will be rejected ab initio by the Editor-in-chief.
– If the manuscript complies from the beginning with the editing requirements, the subject editor chooses 2 peer-reviewers (either from those already accredited by the journal or from a number of new suggestions, in which case he conveys the proposal/s in order to be sent the approval letter acknowledging the quality of official reviewer of the journal), and it is mandatory that one of them belongs to an academic site other than the authors of the manuscript.
Note: In this respect, the database with potential peer reviewer, plus new proposals will be used.
Possible objections formulated by the authors against reviewers whom they nominate are to be respected by the editors.
The subject editor (or the editorial board at the request of the subject editor) sends by e-mail to the peer reviewer the letter of request (demanding a review within 2 weeks), together with the manuscript.
The reviewers' decision (approval with no changes, approval with major/minor changes, rejection) will be immediately communicated by e-mail to the corresponding author by the subject editor (the message will be sent in Cc to firstname.lastname@example.org).
If the manuscript gets approval with changes, the anonymous comments of the reviewers will be conveyed together with the reviewers' decision and a statement of the subject editor, which will be the synthesis of the reviewers' opinions.
The corresponding author shall send the improved manuscript within 4 weeks (complying with the initial submittal requests, mentioning the initial registration number of the manuscript followed by ".R1"), together with a letter/Word document as attachment to an e-mail where he/she responds item by item to the comments of the reviewers (the mail is addressed to email@example.com), specifying the manner in which the manuscript was modified.
These documents are sent to the peer reviewers. If they are satisfied with the corresponding author's answer, they will send the subject editor the decision of approval for publication of the improved manuscript (".R1").
If the peer reviewers consider the corresponding author's answer is only partially satisfactory, they will request through new item by item comments an additional review of the manuscript (in which case the manuscript will receive the extension “.R2” ), the editing process following the same rules as in the case of the first revision.
If the peer reviewers consider that either on the first or the second revision, the corresponding author did not meet/or met poorly the revision requests, they will deny the approval for publication, which will be communicated to the subject editor.
The approval for publication once taken by the reviewers, the decision will be communicated in editorial meeting (an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, message which will immediately reach all members of the editorial board and confirm that the attached article was accepted). During this meeting, the priority of the manuscript will be established, considering the following criteria:
- no author shall have 2 articles published in the same issue (as first author);
- the degree of coverage for the different sections of the journal.