|
EVALUATION GUIDE
Articles sent for publication are emailed to the magazine’s contact address, that it is public on its internet site, with at least three months before magazine’s appearance.
After receiving the papers the editorial secretary and the assistant editors perform a preliminary assessment, in which the priority is giving to the following editing requirements:
- thematic framing of the journals in the profile of the journal;
- the subject of the paper must be actual, to contain new, original elements;
- the scientific content of the journal must be consistent;
- the papers should not include political connotations;
- the papers will not present classified information;
- the authors can publish only one paper/number;
- the paper must have an even number of pages;
- the abstract of the paper will have among 100 and 150 words;
- each paper will have at least four keywords;
- the format conditions are respected.
The papers that do not meet these requirements are returned to the first author.
After this preliminary evaluation, the redaction secretary sends the articles for evaluation to two scientific referents for each domain (Management and Marketing).
Articles are evaluated by experts in “peer-review” system. Experts fill an evaluation form (A) and an evaluation paper (B).
Characteristics/Criteria that can be applied |
Maximum points |
Points accorded by the expert |
1. Concision and the informative character of title; |
5 |
|
2. Information’s relevance |
10 |
|
3. The article’s structure (summary, keywords, introduction, content, conclusions) |
10 |
|
4. Style, grammar and punctuation |
10 |
|
5. Relevance and utility of research |
20 |
|
6. Accessibility and understanding of assertions |
10 |
|
7. Giving up to quoting abuse |
10 |
|
8.Respecting all ethics elements |
10 |
|
9. Showing alternative treatments |
5 |
|
10. Accent on results, interpretation and conclusion (the creativity level) |
10 |
|
- The evaluation paper must be structured in four different parts and explain the judgments made in the evaluation form. In the first part the essence of paper is resumed in maximum 5 phrases, the expert proving that he understood the paper’s content. In the second part the significance and objectives of the paper are evaluated. In the third part, the scientific quality of the paper must be evaluated (methodology, techniques, results precision, interpretations accuracy also).
At last, papers will be included in one of the following categories:
- Articles good for publishing;
- Articles for reanalyzing;
- Articles that can’t be published.
For articles that must be reanalyzed, redaction secretary involves a third scientist. He sends to the first two a synthesis of form and background problems over they have to agree and requires them to write a common evaluation paper.
In the situation of a common paper containing the recommendation for publishing an article but with some suggestions, the third referee will address to the secretary. The latter, after depersonalizing the common evaluation paper, returns the article together with suggestions to the author, giving him some time for reconsidering his article.
Referees must focus on suggesting ways for improving articles’ content. These must be accurate, constructive, identify also the strengths, not only the weaknesses. Referees will adopt a collegial tone, showing the authors respect for their research effort.
Unaccepted papers will be returned to authors highlighting the reasons for rejection.
Accepted papers will be published in the current number of the magazine. |
