Peer reviewing is a very important stage in the process of publishing academic papers, it is the essence of the entire academic publishing system. The peer-review process has a crucial role to play in ensuring the scientific quality and impact of the journal, as it assesses the originality, scientific relevance and quality of the articles submitted for publication. During it, reviewers and editors can suggest improvements to the form and content of articles in progress.

Symbolon Journal uses the system of reviewing articles in a double-blind peer review system, the identity of the author(s) of the article, respectively of the reviewer(s) not being known by the parties. Only the editor, designates the reviewer and knows both the identity of the author (s) and that of the reviewer. In cases where the double-blind system is not possible, the simple-blind peer review system will be used, in which the reviewer knows the identity of the author, but the author does not know that of the reviewer. The choice of reviewers aims to avoid conflicts of interest.

All papers will be subject to peer review in order to select and correct the manuscripts: “all received materials will first be distributed to those who are the best connoisseurs in the issue. Nothing will be published without the sign that it is useful ...”[1].


The review process

The stages of the review process are as follows:

  1. Receiving items. The editor-in-chief or deputy associate editor-in-chief receives the articles from the authors by e-mail and distributes them to the editors.
  2. Evaluation of editors. The editors make a first assessment of them, taking into account the observance of the purpose, objectives and topics of the journal, as well as the conditions of publication described in the section Instructions for authors. If the article does not comply with them, it will be rejected and the author will be notified of the reasons for this rejection.
  3. Evaluation of reviewers. If the editors accepted the proposed articles, they will remove the identification elements of the authors and send them to the reviewers. An article can be sent to two or more reviewers. The reviewers are selected so that their specialization and experience correspond to the topic proposed by the author. If necessary, the reviewer may request additional opinions from invited reviewers, external to the journal's scientific staff, provided that they meet the same conditions for specialization and experience. The choice of peer-reviewers will aim to avoid conflicts of interest.
    Reviewers evaluate the paper according to the criteria and fill in the review form. The reviewer submits to the editor the review form, the conclusion of which contains one of the following recommendations:

    a. Acceptance without revision
    b. Acceptance with revision (minor or major)
    c. Rejection
  4. Acceptance or rejection of the proposed article. After reading the reviewers' reports, the editor sends the author one of the following decisions:

a. Acceptance without revision. In this case, the article will be scheduled for publication in one of the following issues of the journal.

b1. Acceptance with minor revision. In this case, the comments made by the reviewer are sent to the author, who is asked to resolve them within a given time limit.

b1. Acceptance with minor revision. In this case, the comments made by the reviewer are sent to the author, who is asked to resolve them within a given time limit.

b2. Acceptance with major revision. In this case, the comments made by the reviewer are sent to the author, asking him to resolve them within a given time, but the corrected version is sent back to peer-reviewers, who may decide to accept the manuscript for publication. If the second revision does not lead to a variant that satisfies the requirements of the peer-reviewers, the editor-in-chief may decide not to publish the manuscript.

c. Rejection, with the notification of the author regarding its reasons. Rejected articles cannot be submitted future, even if they have been reworded by the authors.

The author is informed that the editorial team will not make any changes in the article's content without the author's consent.

If the author does not wish to comply with one or more of the recommendations of the peer-reviewers, the editor-in-chief decides to publish or not to publish the manuscript.

The final decision on accepting or rejecting a paper for publication rests with the editor-in-chief. In case of finding some forms of plagiarism, fabrication of data, etc., as well as some major writing or content errors, the editor-in-chief may decide ab initio, to reject the publication of the manuscript.



[1] Essais et Observations de Medecine de la Societe D’ Edimbourg, vol. I, Jaques Guerin, Paris, 1740, p. VI.