The scientific committee plays a consultative role, assesses adequacy of articles to the thematic field of the journal, takes part in article selection process.
The editorial board is responsible for defining the general policy of the journal, along with the Chief editor and in agreement with the Director of the Journal. They follow up the correspondence between authors and reviewers.
The peer-reviewers are appointed for each issue and take part in articles selection and evaluation according to the editorial policy. The peer-review committee is formed by members of the scientific/editorial board or other specialists in the field.
Papers sent to the Editorial Board with a view to publication will be assessed by the members of the Scientific Committee and published solely with the approval of the referees. The authors will receive one of the following answers from the reviewers: accept, publish without modifications; accept, publish with minor modifications; accept, rework (major modifications required); reject, poor quality/out of scope.
Each submission will be accompanied by an abstract (abstract, keywords; the abstract must state the objectives of the work, the methodology and the main results of the research or presentation) in two languages and include certain personal data (author’s title/ institution, email address).
Author copyright. Authors have full reproduction, distribution, public communication, and derivative work rights. Authors are responsible for clarifying the right to use the information contained in the papers.
The content of the articles will be checked with plagiarism detection tools. The editorial board always takes reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred.
The Editorial Board members will perform an initial assessment establishing the referees with expertise in the field of the paper and will select referees with expertise in the research field; referees will decide on the acceptance of the paper. Articles will be presented to the referees without any indication of the authors’ names. The reviewers are independent of the authors, they are not affiliated with the same institution.
Papers that fall within the scientific standards will be placed on the waiting list for publication. Papers that are likely to fall within the scientific standards following certain changes will be returned to their authors with the appropriate observations. After scientific review, authors will be notified if a paper has been rejected.
For each paper, in the proposal for publication, reviewers will comment on the topicality of the theme, the thoroughness of the scientific ideas, the author’s credibility and the innovation and originality he/she brings to the field.
- General appreciation (relevance of the subject, originality in dealing with the subject, importance of the conclusions, theoretical scope).
- Research Method (relevance of the methodology for the object of study, originality of the data treated, rigor in how the data was treated).
- Argumentation / discussion (quality of the interpretation of the data, logic and structure of the argumentation, degree of advanced ideas, links with the specialized literature on the subject).
- Presentation (Overall structure of the article, clarity and concision of the style, clarity and design of tables and figures)
- Other criteria (if necessary).