STUDIA EPHEMERIDES
 
REVIEWS
   
         
           
  PEER REVIEW  
           
 

The articles submitted for publishing are reviewed by two external academics - not affiliated with Babes-Bolyai University, nor with the institution of the author. They have to fill a standard review form (see description below), and their suggestions are sent to the author if further revisions are required. The Journal uses a double blind peer review system, neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's names throughout the entire review process.

 
           
           
 

 

GUIDE FOR REVIEWERS

 

Please evaluate the articles submitted to our journal as follows:

1. Written evaluation – critics and comments on the article (1-5 pages).
2. Evaluation based on the form.

EVALUATION FORM:

The Aspect                                                                                                              Evaluation
1. The title is clear and reflects the object of study
2. The abstract synthesizes well the content of the article
3. The introduction presents the relevance of the article for the given field
and quotes the main results obtained by other authors concerning the subject        
4. The article contains a good overview on the previous studies from the same domain  
5. The methodology in use is coherently presented and there is a fair justification
of it being preferred instead of other existent methodologies                                                 
6. The source of the database is reliable (official databases, representative samples, etc)      
7. The scientific contribution of the paper is original
8. The conclusions summarize clearly the results and the consequences  
9.  Recent and well chosen (suitable) bibliography.  There is a clear match between
the bibliographic references from the end of the article and the ones quoted in the text  
10. The vocabulary used is academic, without incoherencies or grammar mistakes               

The recommendation for publication:

  1. Accepted in the initial form
  2. Accepted with minor modifications
  3. Accepted with substantial modifications
  4. Rejected

Reviewers’ name:

Date: