Evaluation and Peer Review Procedure 

Ever since the establishment of the Universitaria Publishing House – for more than 28 years –, according to its Rules of Procedures, the signing of an editing contract with the author/authors of a work was conditioned by the two favorable scientific reports, written by the reviewers of the publishing house or by personalities designated by them (lecturers, professors or scientific researchers (from the second grade onwards).

Under these circumstances, the authors are already informed that they can propose a book for publication to the Universitaria Publishing House only if the paper meets certain standards.

An important role in attracting manuscripts for publication is played by the Scientific Council of the publishing house, consisting of specialists recognized in their field of expertise, teachers-doctoral supervisors. They recommend for publication to the publishing house, in the Studia doctoralia collection, the doctoral theses that obtained the “very well” qualification following the public defense.

In addition to the proposals coming from the Scientific Council, any author, researcher, doctoral student, teacher from Romania or abroad, can send the manuscript for evaluation and publication, to the publishing house’s e-mail address.

The director of the publishing house receives the manuscript of the paper, on the publishing house’s e-mail address, in editable format (preferably word 2010), sends it to the editor (the publishing house has 5 people who graduated the editing course) to verify compliance with the minimal conditions for the publication of a scientific paper:

- the work fits the theme and scientific fields of the publishing house;

- the theme is up-to-date;

- the paper is scientific;

- the structure of the paper is coherent;

- the quotation is made correctly, both in the text and in the final bibliographical list;

- the bibliographic sources in the field are strictly up-to-date.

The verified manuscript is sent to two scientific reviwers in the field of the work proposed for publication, who independently evaluate the scientific quality of the work. The reviewers are part of the Publishing House’s Referral Committee or can be appointed by the latter to participate in the peer review process.

The reviewers have one month to study the content and make the observations they deem necessary in order to clarify and specify some issues addressed by the authors, in order to improve the works.

The evaluation of the works is done following these scientific criteria: 

- the relevance of the paper for the scientific/artistic field (the relevance of the study on the research activity in the academic environment; the impact on the fields to which the paper refers to);

- the structure of the paper (unitary, coherent, the relevance of the paper’s title, in relation to its content)

- the content of the paper (scientific substantiation of the content of the paper; the manner of making the analysis models; the novelty of the proposed topic, the clarity, conciseness and rational organization of the presented theoretical/practical aspects);

- citation of sources (relevance of bibliographic sources; observance of the norms for indicating the bibliographic and webographic sources in force);

- editing and aesthetic criteria (obeying the norms in force, specific to the language in which the work is written, accuracy of figures, graphics);

Last but not least, the reviewers also take into account the ethical aspects of the paper. The reviewers improve the quality of manuscripts, disseminating correct and valuable scientific information (thus preventing the publication of poor quality materials; the quality of the manuscript is improved – presentation of data, figures, style, etc., providing a constructive critique for the author).

The scientific reviewers that have read and analyzed the works proposed for publication will prepare a paper in which they will provide essential information about the reviewed works presenting descriptions and expositions, the purpose of the author and suggestive quotes from the text.

The result of the review

The work can be:

- accepted for publication;

- accepted for publication, but with changes;

- rejected.

If both reviewers consider that the paper does not meet the qualities required for publication, it is rejected. If one of the reviewers considers that the paper can be published with changes, and the other evaluator rejects it, then the third opinion is called, respectively to another reviewer, who decides if the paper can be published with the suggested changes.

The editor sends to the author of the work the recommendations of the references.

Within three weeks the author must review his work and respond to the recommendations, changes, observations and suggestions of the reviewers.

If s/he does not agree with the recommendations made, the paper is rejected.

An author can sign a contract with Universitaria Publishing House only when the reviewers hand over the two favorable scientific reports, so after taking into account all the recommendations of the scientific reviewers.

The author(s) and reviewers are also anonymized throughout the review process.

To motivate the people involved in the peer review process, the names of the scientific reviewers that recommend the paper for publication will be mentioned on the fourth page of the paper.

By signing the publishing contract, the author guarantees to the Publishing House that the Work is original, that he is entitled to conclude the contract and that the editing and marketing of the Work will not cause in any way a violation of other copyrights, that nothing related to the editing and/or the commercialization of the Work can give rise to a criminal investigation or civil actions.