The process of reviewing articles proposed for publication in the scientific journal Acta et Commentationes

The requirements for the quality of the articles proposed for publication are similar to the prestigious journals in the country and abroad, the articles being evaluated according to several criteria by peer-review specialists.

The peer-review procedure includes the following steps:

  1. Preliminary stage

All articles submitted for publication to Acta et Commentationes are subject to the peer-review procedure.

The articles will be forwarded to the Editorial Board by e-mail at and within 7 days the author of the article will receive an e-mail confirmation.

  1. Establishing the objective of the peer-review procedure

The objective of the peer-review procedure is to ensure that all articles that receive the publishing acceptance are of an adequate scientific level and make significant, significant contributions to the field.

  1. Submission of peer-review procedures

The peer-review procedures practised by Acta et Commentationes are:

-Editorial Board Peer-Review. All members of the Editorial Board are members of the academic community.

 - Expert Peer-Review - experts in their fields of activity.

- Evaluation based on AntiPLag programs.

  1. Editorial Board Peer-Review - detailed presentation

The articles submitted for publication are initially evaluated by the members of the Editorial Board Peer-Review of the Acta et Commentationes Journal, an activity that aims to fit the materials into the field, standards and features of the journal. Every series of the journal has its own editorial board.

The Editorial Board Peer-Review primarily pursues the following editorial requirements:

- thematic classification of articles in the journal's profile;

- topical issue containing original novelties;

-the scientific content of the material should be substantial;

-articles without political connotations;

- the authors can publish no more than two articles (as the first author) per number;

- the size of the article should be between 7 and 12 pages;

- the abstract of the article will be between 75 and 100 words (200-500 symbols);

- each article will include 3-7 keywords;

- the quotations belonging to the specialized literature must be drafted according to the requirements of the PH doctor's thesis elaborated by ANACEC;

- font used - Times New Roman;

 -character size - 13;

 -space between rows - 1.25;

- word processor - Microsoft Word.

Expert Peer-Review - detailed presentation

The Expert Peer Review procedure is conducted independently by two scientific reviewers, members of the academic community, scientifically by a university Professor, Associate Professor or Researcher.

The choice of scientific reviewers is made using their specialization as a criterion. The specialization must correspond to the field in which the article was ranked following the   the Editorial Board Review.

The peer-review procedure will be based on the use of peer-review forms. Within the meetings held following the consultation of the material, one of the two reviewers will be designated as the leader and will be responsible for the correctness, clarity and transmission of the information in a confidential manner to the chief editor of the journal.

The methods of reviewing studies and papers are based on rigorous performance criteria, with the desire to publish only those results of truly competitive research nationwide and internationally.

The reviewers evaluate the article according the following scientific criteria:

- The scientific quality of the work

          - scientific substantiation of the content of the study;

          - the way in which analysis models are made;

          - novelty of the proposed theme.

- Relevance, impact and importance of the work

         - the relevance of the study on the research activity in the academic environment;

         - the impact on the domains referred to in the article;

- Quality of technical content

         - relevance of bibliographic sources;

         - clarity and accuracy of the text;

         - lack of errors, misconceptions and ambiguities.

The detailed description of the criteria can be found in the peer-review form of the Journal.

The peer-review expert process is completed through awarding by the reviewer, on the basis of the above criteria, of the qualification "accepted", "accepted, but modified" or "rejected".

  1. Peer-Review Form

The Peer-Review form is the document underlying the review process. This will be completed in the first instance by the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal, then by the appointed referents, and will return to the Editorial Board. The author will be informed of the decision and related recommendations.

  1. Rights and obligations of the authors and reviewers

Authors rights:

The authors of the articles submitted for publication have the right to contact the Editorial Board throughout the review process in order to receive information on the status of the manuscript.

The authors of the articles have the right to request additional justifications from the chief editor if the reviewer assigns the "rejected" rating.

  1. During the review process, the identity of the author is confidential in relation to the reviewers appointed to evaluate the article.
  2. The authors have the right to request justifications in case of exceeding the deadlines stipulated in point 8.


Obligations of authors

  1. The authors have the obligation to perform the orthographic and / or ortoepical correction of the material;
  2. The authors have the obligation to present an appropriate bibliography reflecting the documentation activity;
  3. The authors have the obligation to follow the Law on Good Conduct in Scientific Research;
  4. The authors must declare under their own responsibility that the material has not been published in other journals.


Note:  Authors are presumed to know about the copyright law.


Rights of Reviewers:

  1. The reviewers may make the recommendations they consider necessary for an article to meet the conditions for publication.

b.The reviewers have the autonomy to assign the desired grade/qualification to the peer-review of the material.

Referee Obligations:

  1. The reviewers can only carry out the scientific evaluation activity at the level of the assigned works.
  2. The reviewers are required to comply with the deadlines set out in point 8 by submitting the peer-review form in material or electronic variant.

Note: The Editor-in-Chief of the Journal has the autonomy to decide on the publication of articles in the journal.

  1. Deadlines

The deadline for sending the confirmation of the receipt of the material sent by the authors is 7 days.

Within 30 days of submitting the acknowledgment of the receipt of the submitted material, the Editorial Board shall send the authors the decision whether or not to publish that article.

The period between the receipt of an article and publication does not normally exceed six months, depending on the portfolio of articles in the editorial office.

  1. Final remarks

v The reviewers and the Editorial Board are not responsible for the spelling, orthopedic and content correction of the articles.

v Acta et Commentationses Journal will exclusively publish scientific articles.