All applications are reviewed by the members of the editorial council. The documents that fit the topic of the magazine are assessed by two independent scientific referents who accepted to review the documents and who send their review to the Editor in Chief. The identity of the assessors is not disclosed to the authors.
The reviewers give the Editor in Chief the review form, including comments on the scientific content of the work and the possibility to publish it. The Editor in Chief summarizes the assessors’ observations and communicates them to the author.
Considering the opinions of all reviewers, the Editor in Chief decides whether to accept, review or reject the paper. According to the reviewers’ recommendations, the manuscript can be accepted, sent back to the author for minor revisions or rejected.
Find out more about peer review in this guide from Sense about Science
Report communication.
Once you have completed your evaluation of the article, the next step is finishing the report and submitting it to the editor.
The report should include key elements of your review, taking into consideration the points mentioned in the previous section. When you make the comment you should do it in a constructive and polite way. You should not include any personal remarks about the author.
The understanding of any shortcoming is important. You should explain and support your opinion, in order for the editor and authors to be able to understand the comments. It is also necessary to indicate whether your comments are a personal opinion or are reflected and argued by data.
When you make the final recommendation, regarding the reviewed article, you should consider the categories that an editor would use to classify the article, namely:
a. Rejection due to poor quality or outside the purpose
b. Acceptance without reviewing
c. Acceptance with a review (either minor or major)
If you think that the article needs reviewing clearly indicate the editor what type of revision it needs and inform it whether you want to see the reviewed article or not.
In order to make reviewing easier and allow the organization of appreciations made for the article, it is good to use an operational chart, according to the model below. It will also help at the report drawing-up.
Operational chart for performing the review
TITLE |
Does the title clearly express the content of the article? Is the title formulated in a suggestive manner for the theme proposed by the magazine? | ||||
ABSTRACT |
Is the abstract informative enough? Are the researches and results described in the abstract? Does the abstract give a good perspective on the final message of the article? | ||||
INTRODUCTION |
Is the connection to current concerns in the field accurately revealed? Are the research tasks adequately presented? SDoes it convincingly argues the contribution of the research to the development of the theory and/or improvement of engineering practice? | ||||
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Does it clearly stipulate the source and origin of research methods used? Are methods validated/ acknowledged? Are data and statistics credible? | ||||
RESEARCH/INVESTIGATION AND RESULTS |
Are the results of the research correctly identified and clearly described? Are all relevant relations to others’ papers/ researches declared? Is the literature listed in supporting the paper comprehensive and topical enough? Are errors of interpretation avoided enough? Are assumptions and speculations avoided enough? | ||||
CONCLUSIONS |
Are the conclusions correctly/ logically resulted from the paper explained? Does it avoid erroneous/ wrong or unjustified interpretations in formulating conclusions? Does it avoid too general or partial conclusions? | ||||
REFERENCES |
Are references updated? Are references correctly indicated within the paper? SAre references correctly indexed and recorded in bibliography? | ||||
TABLES |
Are tables included entirely in the paper regarding, among others, the indication of measurement units, indication of source, stipulation and explanation of possible dissimilarities/ differences? Are tables correctly named and numbered? Are tables and their data correctly valued and interpreted in the text of the paper? Are tables well proportioned and aesthetically placed in the text of the paper? | ||||
GRAPHS AND FIGURES |
Are graphs and figures illustrative for the phenomena described and correctly composed? Is the source indicated for every graphic or figure? Are graphs and figures correctly named and numbered? Are graphs and figures correctly valued and interpreted in the text? Are graphs and figures proportioned and aesthetically placed in the text of the paper? | ||||
GENERAL COMMENTS |
Important subject and adequate arguing? New valuable idea? Does grammar and spelling require greater attention? Limited field of interest? Data lacking credibility or erroneously analyzed? Inadequate or inaccurate approach? Repetition of facts? Partial and not convincing approach? | ||||
RECOMMENDATIONS |
It is recommended: …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………. |