| |
The double blind peer-review process is conceived so as to insure the best quality for the articles and studies published in the pages of our journal. After having received the manuscript, the editor in charge erases all data that could allow the identification of the author, before sending it to the reviewer.
The journal takes the engagement to send the articles to be reviewed by two peer-reviewers from outside the Institution to which the author is affiliated. The peer-reviewers have to check, read carefully, make a written evaluation of the article and fill up a review standard form. Their suggestions are sent to the author, for further changes. The reviewers are not aware of the authors’ names, as well as the authors don’t have the information regarding their reviewers’ identity (double blind review system). |
|
| |
GUIDE FOR REVIEWERS
Please evaluate the articles submitted to our journal as follows:
1. Written evaluation – critics and comments on the article (1-5 pages).
2. Evaluation based on the form.
EVALUATION FORM:
|
The Aspect |
Evaluation |
1. |
The title is clear and reflects the object of study |
|
2. |
The abstract synthesizes well the content of the article |
|
3. |
The introduction presents the relevance of the article for the given field and quotes the main results obtained by other authors concerning the subject |
|
4. |
The article contains a good overview on the previous studies from the same domain |
|
5. |
The methodology in use is coherently presented and there is a fair justification of it being preferred instead of other existent methodologies |
|
6. |
The source of the database is reliable (official databases, representative samples, etc) |
|
7. |
The scientific contribution of the paper is original |
|
8. |
The conclusions summarize clearly the results and the consequences |
|
9. |
Recent and well chosen (suitable) bibliography. There is a clear match between the bibliographic references from the end of the article and the ones quoted in the text |
|
10. |
The vocabulary used is academic, without incoherencies or grammar mistakes |
|
The recommendation for publication:
- Accepted in the initial form
- Accepted with minor modifications
- Accepted with substantial modifications
- Rejected
Reviewers’ name:
Date: |
|
| |
STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA PEER REVIEWERS:
MARIE-LOUISE PAULESC, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
ILEANA ORLICH, Arizona State University, USA
MARIE CLEREN, Université Paris 4 Sorbonne, France
LIVIU DOSPINESCU, Université Laval, Québeq, Canada
DOMNICA RĂDULESCU, Washington & Lee University, USA
LAURA CARETTI, Universitatea din Siena, Italia
GILLES DECLERCQ, Université Paris 3-Sorbonne Nouvelle,
France
LAURA MESINA, Centrul de Excelență în Studiul Imaginii,
Universiatea București
MARIA ZĂRNESCU, Universitatea Naţională de Artă Teatrală şi Cinematografică
UNATC „I.L. Caragiale“ Bucureşti, Facultatea de Teatru,
Departamentul Studii Teatrale
ANCA MĂNIUȚIU, Universitatea Babeş-Bolyai, Cluj-Napoca, România
CATHERINE TREILHOU-BALAUDÉ, Institut d’Etudes Théâtrales, Paris 3 Sorbonne- Nouvelle |
|
