STUDIA PHILOLOGIA
 
REVIEWS
   
         
   
  PEER REVIEW  
           
 

All manuscripts are subjected to a PEER REVIEW process. The editors submit the manuscripts to two reviewers outside the university, unknown to the author and to whom the name of the author is not given; the reviewers then report the result of their evaluation: manuscript accepted in the submitted form without other adjustments, or manuscript accepted after the adjustments required by the reviewer(s) were made, or manuscript rejected. The results of the evaluation and possible observations are transmitted to the author.

 
           
           
 
 
 

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:

  1. Accepted in the initial form
  2. Accepted with minor modifications
  3. Accepted with substantial modifications
  4. Rejected

Reviewers’ name:

Date:

 
           
           
           
           
 
1200