Peer Review Procedure
Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Philologia has adopted the double-blind peer review system. The guest editor(s), together with the journal’s editor(s) in charge of the special-themed issue, first select the submissions according to their relevance to the topic. Submissions passing the initial edi...
| Format: | Article |
|---|---|
| Language: | deu |
| Published: |
Cluj University Press
2023-11-01
|
| Series: | Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai. Philologia |
| Online Access: | http://193.231.18.162:80/index.php/subbphilologia/article/view/6341 |
| _version_ | 1797370767985344512 |
|---|---|
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Philologia has adopted the double-blind peer review system. The guest editor(s), together with the journal’s editor(s) in charge of the special-themed issue, first select the submissions according to their relevance to the topic. Submissions passing the initial editorial screening enter the double-blind peer review process. As a rule, this involves the anonymous evaluation of each submission by 2 external referees (from outside both Babeş-Bolyai University and the institution to which the author of the article is affiliated) identified as specialists in the respective academic area.
The review of the submissions is done:
- through elaborate comments on the text, which allow the reviewers to freely and constructively express their suggestions, criticisms, and appreciations.
- by filling the peer-review form that evaluates the following aspects: the clarity of the title and its appropriateness to the content of the manuscript,
• the way in which the abstract captures the content of the manuscript,
• whether the introductory section outlines the relevance of the article for the given field, offers a good overview of previous studies on the same topic, and presents a clearly formulated thesis,
• whether the paper has a solid and well-informed theoretical background, relevant for the analysis/ argumentation,
• the originality of the paper and the significance of its contribution to the field,
• how the concluding section summarizes the results and the consequences/implications,
• the quality and relevance of references,
• appropriate citation and referencing,
• stylistic and grammatical accuracy.
The reviewer’s decision materializes in one of the three possible recommendations, namely: acceptance in the initial form, conditional acceptance (minor/ moderate/ major changes in form, style and/or content), or rejection. In the event of significant discrepancy between the recommendations of the two reviewers, a third specialist is called upon to assist in the final decision of publication or rejection.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T18:09:24Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-3be6fbaf7e354fef894fec5440b55470 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1220-0484 2065-9652 |
| language | deu |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-08T18:09:24Z |
| publishDate | 2023-11-01 |
| publisher | Cluj University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai. Philologia |
| spelling | doaj.art-3be6fbaf7e354fef894fec5440b554702024-01-01T09:30:34ZdeuCluj University PressStudia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai. Philologia1220-04842065-96522023-11-01Peer Review Procedure Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Philologia has adopted the double-blind peer review system. The guest editor(s), together with the journal’s editor(s) in charge of the special-themed issue, first select the submissions according to their relevance to the topic. Submissions passing the initial editorial screening enter the double-blind peer review process. As a rule, this involves the anonymous evaluation of each submission by 2 external referees (from outside both Babeş-Bolyai University and the institution to which the author of the article is affiliated) identified as specialists in the respective academic area. The review of the submissions is done: - through elaborate comments on the text, which allow the reviewers to freely and constructively express their suggestions, criticisms, and appreciations. - by filling the peer-review form that evaluates the following aspects: the clarity of the title and its appropriateness to the content of the manuscript, • the way in which the abstract captures the content of the manuscript, • whether the introductory section outlines the relevance of the article for the given field, offers a good overview of previous studies on the same topic, and presents a clearly formulated thesis, • whether the paper has a solid and well-informed theoretical background, relevant for the analysis/ argumentation, • the originality of the paper and the significance of its contribution to the field, • how the concluding section summarizes the results and the consequences/implications, • the quality and relevance of references, • appropriate citation and referencing, • stylistic and grammatical accuracy. The reviewer’s decision materializes in one of the three possible recommendations, namely: acceptance in the initial form, conditional acceptance (minor/ moderate/ major changes in form, style and/or content), or rejection. In the event of significant discrepancy between the recommendations of the two reviewers, a third specialist is called upon to assist in the final decision of publication or rejection. http://193.231.18.162:80/index.php/subbphilologia/article/view/6341 |
| spellingShingle | Peer Review Procedure Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai. Philologia |
| title | Peer Review Procedure |
| title_full | Peer Review Procedure |
| title_fullStr | Peer Review Procedure |
| title_full_unstemmed | Peer Review Procedure |
| title_short | Peer Review Procedure |
| title_sort | peer review procedure |
| url | http://193.231.18.162:80/index.php/subbphilologia/article/view/6341 |