Peer Review
1. The manuscripts accepted in the editorial evaluation are send to the reviewers. A manuscript can be sent to two or more reviewers. The reviewers are selected so that their specialization and experience correspond to the theme proposed by the author. If necessary, the reviewer may ask for additional opinions from invited reviewers, external to the scientific staff of the publishing house, provided that they meet the same conditions regarding specialization and experience. In the choice of reviewers, the aim will be to avoid conflicts of interest.
The evaluation criteria are:
- relevance of the topic: research gap, importance and actuality of the research topic, validity and coherence of research questions or hypotheses;
- scientific value and innovative contribution: originality of the contribution, scientific novelty, methodological accuracy and adequacy, rigor of analysis, consistency of scientific content, contribution to the development of theory in the field. Specific to works in the artistic field, the following can be evaluated: the value and aesthetic sensitivity of the approach, the contribution to the understanding of the artistic phenomenon, the ability to analyze the artistic language.
- quality of writing: clarity and correctness of expression, academic language, logical organization, style, relevance of bibliographic sources and correctness of citation, appropriate use of academic language, logical organization of content, general style, as well as relevance and correctness of bibliographic sources and citations and how to relate to them;
- non-conformities: gaps in the exposition, vaguely formulated or abandoned objectives, content errors, improper or misapplied methodology, insufficient argumentation, inconsistencies between theory and artistic practice, violations of the norms of academic ethics, misconceptions or ambiguities.
The reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to the criteria and send the review form to the publishing house, the conclusion of which contains one of the following recommendations:
a. Acceptance for publication without modification
b. Acceptance for publication with changes (minor or major)
c. Rejection of the proposed manuscript.
2. Acceptance or rejection of the proposed article. After reading the reviewers' reports, the member of the publishing house responsible for the volume sends the author one of the following decisions:
a. Acceptance for publication without modification. In this case, the manuscript will be scheduled for publication.
b1. Acceptance for publication with minor changes. In this case, the observations made by the reviewer are sent to the author, and he is asked to solve them within a given deadline. The author is informed that the editorial staff will only operate with the author's consent any corrections of form or content. If the author does xnot wish to comply with one or more of the recommendations of the peer reviewers, the editorial board decides whether or not to publish the manuscript.
b2. Acceptance for publication with major changes. Also in this case, the observations made by the reviewer are sent to the author, asking him to solve them within a given deadline, and the corrected version is sent back to the peer-reviewers, who can decide to accept the manuscript for publication. If the second revision does not lead to a version that meets the requirements of the peer reviewers, the editorial board may decide not to publish the manuscript.
c. Rejection, with notification of the author of its reasons. Rejected articles cannot be resubmitted to the editorial office in the future, even if they have been reworded by the authors.
In case of finding forms of plagiarism, fabrication of data, etc., as well as major errors in writing or content, the editorial board may decide ab initio, to reject the publication of the manuscript.
