Reviewers Guide

Internal Review

The articles submitted for publishing must be sent in electronic format (.doc) at the e-mail address of the Journal, mentioned on the website, with at least two months before the publishing of the Journal ( 1st May for Volumme … Issue 1, and 1st November for Volumme …Issue 2). After receiving the paper, the Editor-in-chief and Deputies Editor-in-chief make a preliminary evaluation, that follows, with priority, the following editorial demands:

    • The originality of the papers;
    • Applicability of ideas;
    • The style of presentation;
    • Written communication;
    • A rigorous research;
    • The impact of ideas;
    • Business orientated papers;
    • Works focused on reducing costs, time, increased quality and agility/flexibility of SC processes and organizations.

All submissions go through an internal peer review process. Each submission is being verified with an Anti-Plagiarism Software, and after papers are accepted for further reviewing only the ones that do not exceed 20% in Similitude Coefficient number 1 and 10% in Similitude Coefficient number 2 of informations taken from other sources. Anti-plagiarism check is done by the Valahia University  program „sistem”, romanian version at polski sistem „STRIKE”. The editors makes an initial decision to send the manuscript out for peer review or to reject without external review. Articles can be rejected at this stage for a variety of reasons such as: 20% and 10% of informations taken from other sources, similarity with a recently published article, the topic is outside of the scope of the Journal, little new information is provided, important flaws in the scientific validity, or an unprofessional presentation. This process normally takes 5 days. If the editor believes the article may be of interest to our readers, it is then sent out for external review.

External Review – double-blind peer review process

After this preliminary evaluation, the editorial secretary depersonalizes the paper submissions and sends them to be reviewed by the scientific reviewers chosen by the Journal.

The structure:

The title.

Clearly describes the article

  • The abstract. Reflects the content of the article;
  • Introduction. Describes with accuracy the problem that the author is researching. Normally, the introduction has 1 or 2 paragraphs. This must synthesize relevant ideas to offer context and explain the results of others, if they exist, to contest or extend them. It must describe the experiment, the hypothesis, and the experimental plan of the project or the method;
  • The content/body of the paper. It must be well chosen and it must precisely explain how the date was collected, it must show if the project is fit to answer the asked question, if there is enough gathered information for the research, if procedures are followed and in a logical order, if the methods are new and explained with details, if the group sample is the right one, if materials and equipment’s are accurately described, if the article showed the type of data registered and if the author was clear in describing the measurements. The author must explain what was discovered during the research. The results must be clearly presented and in a logical sequence. It must be appreciated if an appropriate analysis was made and if the statistics are correct;
  • Conclusion. The affirmations from this section must be supported by results that should be reasonable. The authors must indicate how the results are relating to the expectations and previous research, if the article supports or contradicts previous theories, if it explains how the research is one step ahead for scientific knowledge;
  • Figures and tables. When considering a whole article, the figures and tables informs/communicates something about the reader, they must be an important part of the article, the figures must describe with precision the dates from the article, they must be clearly executed and have the same aspect in all the article.

Ethical aspects

Plagiarism: If you suspect an article is a considerable copy of a paper/previous article, notify the editor and make the citation of the paper/article
The fraud: it is very difficult cu detect fraud, but if you suspect that the results of a paper are not true, bring it to the attention of the editor, explaining why you think the results are fake
Other ethical problems: must verify if the confidentiality is preserved, when data that is not destined to be seen by the public is used, if necessary permissions are showed and all contributions and sources mentioned, and if any ethical problems are respected or not.

The Communication of the Report

Once you completed the evaluation for the article, the next step is to finish the report and send it to the editor.
The report must contain the key elements of the review, following the problems mentioned previously. The commentaries must be written constructively and with politeness. You must not include any personal remarks towards the authors.
Understanding any deficiency is important. You must explain and sustain your opinion, so the editor and the authors can understand the comments. It is also necessary to indicate if your comments are a personal opinion or are reflected and sustained with data.
When you make the final recommendation regarding the reviewed article, you must take into consideration the categories that the editor will use to classify the article as follows:

    1. Acceptance without any modification;
    2. Acceptance, but with some modification (minor or major);
    3. Rejected because of the weak qualities or outside the purpose.

For the reanalyzed articles, the editorial secretary involves a third scientific reviewer. He/she will send to the first two reviewers a synthesis of the problems that must be put together in a common report.
In the situation of a common report containing the recommendation for publishing with some suggestion, the third reviewer will address the editorial secretary. The last one, after depersonalizing the common report of the first two reviewers, will return the article to the author, with the suggestions of the reviewers and will give a certain time for the reconsideration of the paper.
It is recommended for the reviewers to concentrate on suggesting ways of improvement for the content of the paper. They must be precise, constructive, to identify the strengths, not only the weaknesses. The reviewers must have a collegial tone, showing the deserved respect for the research effort of the author.