peer review

The evaluation of the articles proposed for publication has as purpose the selection of those articles that answer the publication requirements and have a high scientific and originality character. At the same time, aspects of content and expression are targeted, from the perspective of clarity, of the logical approach and of concision.

The review is performed by two specialists, member of the Scientific Board, independently and confidentially. Thus, the name of the author/authors is not made known to the reviewers and the reviewers do not know one about the other. The materials received for review are not made public and shall not be used for other purposes.
There will be used 4 classification levels:
A. acceptance – the article is accepted in the form presented
B. acceptance with review – the article is accepted if the author(s) review(s) the article and include the reviewers’ suggestions and observations
C. acceptance with reserves – the article is accepted if the author(s) rewrite(s) the article on the basis of the reviewers’ suggestions and observations
D. rejection – the article cannot be accepted in the form presented.
An article is rejected if one of the reviewers evaluates it with D. If an article has dissenting evaluations, a third opinion may be requested or the decision rests with the chief editor.

The aspects targeted during the evaluation process are:
1. Originality
The reviewers look at the extent to which the article captures important and current aspects within the journal’s scope and the theoretical, methodological, practical or informative novelty aspects it presents.
2. Structure
The reviewers look at the manner of structuring the article on parts, their logic and succession.
It is verified if the article is presented according to the requirements and if all elements required are present:
- title
- author(s) and their affiliation
- summary – all components
- key-words
- JEL classification
- type of article
- introduction
- sub-components
- conclusions
- bibliography
and if the dimension recommended is observed.

3. Content
The reviewers look at aspects related to the substance of research, opinions, problematic approached. The title must clearly express what the article aims to present. The summary is eloquent for the article, presenting in the essence the elements of maximum importance of the paper. The key words, the JEL classification and the type of article are properly selected.
The article should have an introduction where to present the elements that were the basis for achieving the paper/research, the context, need and importance of the scientific approach. In the content of the article there are presented the research methodology, national and international opinions, the methods and techniques used in documenting or preparing the data presented. The presentation of hypothesis, techniques, methods and models, as well as of results, is appropriate for the topic approached. The interpretation of the results and the solutions proposed meet the socio-economic needs identified earlier, which generated the respective approach.
The conclusions present synthetically the final result of the scientific approach, its manner of use, its dissemination and, where necessary, new research directions.
The bibliography must be representative, approx. 20 titles and supports the article as reference base in the process of documentation and methodological reporting.

4. Linguistic aspects
An aspect noted is a running, clear expression, which allows easy reading. There will be considered repetitive elements and expression structures. The possible errors of grammar or spelling will be highlighted. If systematic errors of expression or of grammar are seen, the editor is notified, in order to decide accordingly. Full liability for the linguistic content rests with the authors or text editors, when text corrections are made.

5. Ethics
The ethics elements considered are: plagiarism, fraud, copyright, use of confidential information, presentation of non-conform results etc.
If noticed, any aspect regarding ethical aspects will be notified to the editor, who must take the necessary measures.

Evaluation report
The reviewer has the obligation to fill out the report form and to place the article on one of the 4 levels presented earlier. For the facile creation of a global overview regarding the article, the reviewer will fill out the attached form.
It is desired that in the final box a synthetic opinion of minimum 10 lines is formulated, which indicates especially the suggestions, observations, recommendations made to the author(s).

Publishing decision
On the basis of the two evaluation reports, the editor will make the decision to publish or reject the article.
In the situations in which the author(s) must review or rewrite the article proposed, the reviewers’ opinions will be brought to their knowledge, but without revealing their identity. The reviewed material is again subjected to the attention of one of the reviewers (preferably to the one who gave the lowest category), while the rewritten materials are given to both reviewers.
If the author(s) does(do) not want to make the modifications requested or they make them improperly, the article shall not be published.